Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household: The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answers to the Addresses as follows:

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (BELIZE, BRUNEI AND BARBADOS)

I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Belize) Order 1973, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Brunei) Order 1973 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Barbados) Order 1973 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (SWEDEN)

I have received your Address praying that on the ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden of the further supplementary protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Sweden) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EDINBURGH CORPORATION (NO 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY (HUNTERSTON ORE TERMINAL) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Northern Ireland

Mr. Duffy: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the operations in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about military operations in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): The Army continues to do all it can to assist the civil authorities in maintaining progress towards the elimination of terrorism.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that, while hon. Members appreciate the need for the Army to make house searches, in view of the recent campaign by Protestant extremist organisations it is to be hoped that such searches will be carried out more vigorously among both sides of the community? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that house searches are proving to be only 10 per cent. positive? Does he not think there is a danger that they may become counter productive?

Mr. Gilmour: I am grateful to the hon. Member for pointing out the necessity for house searches and the fact that they are carried out among both communities. We have taken into account that they can create resentment against the Armed Forces. Nevertheless I am sure he will agree that such searches are necessary.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While it is a matter of congratulation that Her Majesty's Forces are able to do the job in Northern Ireland with fewer men than heretofore, would it not be wiser not to publicise the withdrawal of troops from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend knows, we keep the force levels continuously under review. It would not be


practical to avoid publicity because it is impossible to keep troop movements secret.

Mr. Rose: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable concern, particularly following an article in the Observer a week last Sunday, that policing in certain areas is more strenuous than in others? Will he confirm that over the past year there have been 140 sectarian murders perpetrated by Protestant extremist organisations in addition to the murders committed by the IRA? Will he give an undertaking that an evenhanded policy will be adopted in respect-of both sides?

Mr. Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Army has always been totally even-handed in its policy. Since the beginning of this year 753 Catholics and 505 Protestants have been arrested and charged with security offences. There is no doubt that the Army is being thoroughly even-handed in its policy and will continue to be so.

Mr. Goodhart: While it would be wrong to take chances when the possibility of forming an administration in Northern Ireland is hanging in the balance, may I ask my right hon. Friend constantly to bear in mind the importance of reducing our military presence in Northern Ireland so that there can at least be a 12-month gap between emergency tours? Can he say whether there has been any reduction recently in IRA efforts to import arms into Northern Ireland?

Mr. Gilmour: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we have to keep force levels under review. It is obviously important to give our troops in the Army as much of an interval as possible between Northern Ireland tours. I have no up-to-date and thoroughly reliable information about the import of arms into Ireland by the IRA. I can assure my hon. Friend that the claims made by Mr. Twomey today are thoroughly exaggerated.

Mr. McNamara: The House will be pleased to know that Mr. Twomey's claims are exaggerated. How many people have been arrested for offences connected with the recent campaign of the Unionist extremists? The right hon. Gentleman gave figures for arrests on both sides during the past year. We

would like figures for arrests during the past six weeks up to the culmination of the campaign a few nights ago.

Mr. Gilmour: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact figures for the last six weeks. We do not keep figures week by week and we cannot know exactly the period about which an hon. Member will ask questions. There has, however, been a considerable number of arrests in both communities, certainly in the Protestant community, which the hon. Gentleman is worried about, during the last six weeks. I will write to him giving the exact figures.

Sir R. Cary: Does not the British Army deserve the greatest praise? Very often this has not been a fair battlefield, with individual soldiers and pickets murdered in cold blood, yet the Army has kept both its nerve and its morale.

Mr. Gilmour: I am sure the whole House will wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The skill and courage and, above all, restraint with which the Army has behaved over the last three years are beyond all praise.

Reserve Forces (Training Accidents)

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Minister of State for Defence what would be the cost of insuring volunteer members of the Armed Forces for sums of £1,000, £5,000 and £10,000 against death, and, separately, the cost of accident insurance against injuries sustained while undergoing training for periods of up to 28 days.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): All members of the Armed Forces are volunteers, but I believe my hon. Friend's Question relates to volunteers in the Reserve forces. As my hon. Friend was told on 18th November 1971, it is not the practice for the Crown to insure, and I fear that the figures he asks for are not available.—[Vol. 826, c. 183.]

Mr. Loveridge: While I am sorry that my hon. Friend cannot give me the sample quotations required, none the less I ask him to consider extending to the Reserve forces the welcome new contributory insurance scheme that is available to Regular members of the forces.

Mr. Buck: I think that the scheme my hon. Friend has in mind is a non-public scheme operated on a voluntary contribution basis. However, I will consult the trustees to see whether members of the Reserve forces can participate.

Malta

Miss Fookes: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the military base in Malta after the ending of the present agreement in 1979.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: This matter will no doubt be discussed with the Malta Government and our NATO allies in due course; but I cannot pre-empt these discussions.

Miss Fookes: Would it not be prudent to be considering these arrangements in view of the relationship between ourselves and the Maltese Government?

Mr. Gilmour: Her Majesty's Government are extremely far-sighted, as everyone knows, but it is difficult to say exactly what will happen six years from now.

Harrier Aircraft

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed maritime version of the HS Harrier.

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of State for Defence when he proposes to make a decision in connection with ordering the Royal Navy version of the Harrier aircraft.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the proposed Royal Navy version of the Harrier aircraft.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: As my right hon. and noble Friend said in another place on 14th November, the priority to be given to this project has yet to be determined in relation to the future defence programme as a whole. A statement will be made as soon as a decision has been taken. Meanwhile design work is continuing.—[House of Lords, Vol. 346, c. 638–9.]

Mr. Tebbit: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is true that a sum of about £10 million in total is involved

in bringing the airframe, radar and engine up to the required standard? Will he take note of the fact that there are difficulties with export sales of military systems if part of a system is supplied by a foreign country? Could we have everything on this one British if at all possible?

Mr. Gilmour: We do not normally give exact figures of costs of particular weapons. Of course we encourage any foreign buyers to buy all British, and this is probably more efficient. But if purchasers are particularly anxious to have part of the equipment taken from someone else we are not able to refuse them.

Mr. Edelman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the relatively low productivity of the British aircraft industry is in great measure due to the delays of the Government in placing orders? In the circumstances, in the interests both of national defence and of the industry, can the right hon. Gentleman now give a firm decision so that men will not be standing about idle waiting for work which is yet to come?

Mr. Gilmour: I cannot accept the general premise upon which the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is based, nor the particular premise. I do not believe that men are standing idly by awaiting our decision on this aircraft.

Mr. Wilkinson: I remind my right hon. Friend that on 23rd July he told me that a decision on this project would be announced in about two months' time but that four months has now elapsed and no decision has been made. Does he not agree that it is very important to order the naval variant of the Harrier if the Royal Navy is to have its own integral air defence and long-range strike/reconnaissance aircraft after the "Ark Royal" goes out of service?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree that I have not kept the two months' deadline but I hope that an announcement will not be long delayed. Of course this is an important and useful aircraft for the Royal Navy, but as I have said on a number of occasions, we have to weigh this requirement against competing requirements.

Mr. Judd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have postponed over and over again a


final decision on this matter and that this is having very worrying effects on the morale of the Fleet Air Arm about its future rôle? When can we hope to have a definitive statement in the interests of the effectiveness of the Service?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree that a decision has been postponed but I cannot agree that morale has been affected. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to agree that he himself is in a slightly difficult position on this equipment, because under the Labour Party's policy there could be no question of its being ordered.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is grotesque of the Government to continue to pay lip service to any policy to protect our trade routes overseas unless they are decisive and make this aircraft available for use at sea?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not accept that. It would be a very useful aircraft, but there are many other competing demands on the defence budget.

Mr. Hardy: To what extent are bird strikes a particular hazard to low flying in coastal waters? Is this a reason for the appalling delay?

Mr. Gilmour: No, Sir.

Arms Sales

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make it known to potential customers for British arms supplies that, in the event of these arms being used in hostilities, neither ammunition nor spares may be made available for them.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will draw to the attention of potential overseas customers for British arms any right of the Government to withhold ammunition or spare parts for such arms in the event of their use in hostilities.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: No, Sir.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman admitting that this is not a general policy but simply a policy aimed at one country? While this may satisfy his own personal prejudices, does he not regard it as a grave slur on Britain's reputation as a trading nation, let alone her honour and integrity?

Mr. Gilmour: No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this embargo was not directed against one country. It is perfectly even-handed and has been as strictly applied to the Arabs, for whom the larger part of the arms in the pipeline was destined, as to the Israelis. The hon. Gentleman's strictures are very wide of the mark.

Sir F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only possible purport of the Questions, other than the immediate one, could be the implication that in future a Labour Government, if there should ever be one again, would honour all previous arms agreements made by their Conservative predecessors?

Mr. Gilmour: I would not like to speculate on the motives of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), but he will realise that arms sales play an important part both in our balance of payments and in preserving employment, so I am sure he would not wish to knock such sales.

Mr. Janner: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the depths of disgust in which the Government's policy in this respect is regarded, not only in Israel but by vast numbers of people of all faiths in this country who value her good name?

Mr. Gilmour: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. I agree that it has caused dismay or distress in Israel, but I cannot agree that it was in any way unfair or that it has caused similar reactions in this country.

Mr. Woodhouse: Will my right hon. Friend at least convey to potential customers the view that ammunition and spares will be denied them, as proposed in the Questions, if they transfer British weapons to other countries engaged in aggressive war, as Saudi Arabia did last month?

Mr. Gilmour: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said about the implications of the embargo, and I cannot accept the implications of what my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) has said.

Mr. Loughlin: As the sale of arms is merely a traffic in death, would not it be


better, irrespective of the political complexion of the Government of this country, if as a general principle we as a nation refused to sell arms, spares or any other equipment that is used to kill people?

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman should know that there are a great many jobs involved in this trade and, as I said just now, the country gains a great deal of foreign exchange from such a trade. One of the few constructive actions committed by the last administration was to appoint an arms salesman.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary put forward the thesis that, although it was not proper to break a contract, it was perfectly proper to postpone one. Is that a proposition which my right hon. Friend's Department now accepts?

Mr. Gilmour: I have nothing to add about when the embargo will be lifted, but of course it will not be permanent.

Mr. Janner: Until they are not needed.

Male Nurses

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will offer commissions to all male State registered nurses who are serving or will be recruited in all three Services, in order to end the present discrimination against male nurses.

Mr. Buck: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend, my hon. Friends and I are, however, looking into ways in which the career structure for male nurses in the three Services can best be improved.

Mr. Hardy: One hopes that the hon. Gentleman will not try to defend the indefensible. Does he not agree that it is time that there was progress in this matter, since its consideration has been very protracted? If the Government say that they are opposed to sex discrimination in employment, would it not be appropriate first to put their own house in order in this respect?

Mr. Buck: What the hon. Gentleman has in mind is the recommendations in the Jarret Committee's report. With respect, that was published only on 23rd October. We are giving close and detailed scrutiny to this complex report.

Arms and Equipment Orders

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will give details of the method by which orders are placed by his Department for supplies of arms and equipment and other Service equipments.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Except for certain supplies from Royal ordnance factories, defence equipment is ordered under contract from suppliers on the defence contractors' list. Competitive tenders are invited whenever practicable and the most advantageous offer is accepted, taking all factors, including price, into account. When competition is impracticable, the Ministry of Defence satisfies itself that fair and reasonable prices are paid.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the method of placing orders adopted by his Ministry is very often detrimental to firms in the development districts and that the Department should be looking for possibilities of creating jobs as well as at the placing of orders? Is it not time that the old-boy network operating in this connection was broken? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that when he talks about competitive tenders he is dealing with only a very limited sector of the orders placed by his Department? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the possibility of widening the range?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree that competitive tenders are not the majority of contracts, but I do not accept the rest of the hon. Gentleman's comments. As he knows, under the special preference scheme, if a bid by a development area firm is not low enough to win the contract, up to 25 per cent. of the requirement may be offered to firms in the development areas at a price which does not involve us in any additional expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific grievance in mind and cares to write to me about it, I will look into it.

Mr. Milne: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is continuity and quality of supplies which is vitally important rather than the geographical positions of firms?

Mr. Gilmour: That is so, but at the same time we try to play our part in helping the regions.

Mr. Cronin: In view of our present very grave balance of payments situation, is there not a good case for giving preference to firms with good export records?

Mr. Gilmour: In the nature of things, this very often happens. Firms with good export records normally are highly competitive.

Education Grants (Children)

Mr. John E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of State for Defence what are the criteria by which parents serving in the Armed Forces are enabled to send their children to independent schools; what financial or other assistance is available; and how many children of officers and of other ranks have been so assisted in the last 10 years, distinguishing, if known, between boys and girls and types of schools.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The children of members of the Armed Forces are liable to suffer from interruptions in their education because their parents are subject to frequent postings at home and overseas. Boarding school allowance may therefore be paid to Service parents to assist them to send their children to boarding schools, but only if they remain for a complete stage of education, so as to ensure continuity of education.
The current annual rates of boarding school allowances are: up to £399 for the first child, up to £477 for the second and up to £573 for the third and subsequent children in each family. For the summer term 1973, boarding school allowance was paid in respect of about 16,500 children of officers and 5,000 children of Service men. I regret that the other information sought by my hon. Friend is not available.

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for putting the facts on record. Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a statement by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) in the television programme broadcast in September that these allowances were not available to other ranks under the last administration? If that is untrue, will my right hon. Friend do his best to correct it?

Mr. Gilmour: Yes. I can tell my hon. Friend that my attention has been drawn to it. I ventured to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to his misstatement in a letter which I wrote him on 2nd October. What the hon. Gentleman said was flatly wrong and I very much regret that he has not availed himself of my invitation before now to set the record straight.

Mr. Hattersley: Of course I know, without qualification, that grants for boarding education are available to all ranks in the Services at the same level and that all ranks take them up. But in the light of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave today and those which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) on 14th November, does the right hon. Gentleman still suggest that equal opportunity for boarding education exists in Her Majesty's Forces?

Mr. Gilmour: I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman has continued his evasive tactics. He made a flat statement in saying:
When I was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence we enabled officers in Her Majesty's Forces to send their children to independent schools. But, alas, we did not make that possible for other ranks
That was flatly wrong, and it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to correct his mistake. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The House will regret that the hon. Gentleman is so careless of his own reputation.

Mr. Judd: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of evasiveness. Why does he not give a direct answer? Are the same opportunities open to children of other ranks as those which are open to the children of officers?

Mr. Gilmour: The answer is clear from what I said originally. Exactly the same allowance is paid to officers as to other Service men.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Is not the truth of the matter that the opportunities are there but that they are not taken up by other ranks?

Mr. Gilmour: That is partly true. But many Service men are not so anxious for their children to have boarding-school education as many officers are. But we


must not evade the main point, which is that before a large television audience the hon. Member for Sparkbrook made a flatly untrue statement and he still refuses to withdraw it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As the Government and their supporters for so long have been in favour of means-tested benefits, may I ask whether both officers and other ranks are means-tested before getting these grants?

Mr. Gilmour: No. These benefits are not means-tested. I am interested to hear from Opposition Members that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Sparkbrook seems to be suggesting, they are in favour of more children being sent to independent schools.

Oak Grove House, Sandhurst

Dr. Marshall: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the present rent of the unfurnished tenancy of Oak Grove House, Royal Military College, Sandhurst.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): The house is at present unoccupied but its rent when occupied by a serving officer would be £423 a year if unfurnished.

Dr. Marshall: At a time when millions of tenants throughout the country are subjected to the so-called fair rents procedure of the Housing Finance Act and when some rents for other ranks' married quarters in the Army are 28p per annum per sq. ft., whereas the figure given by the hon. Gentleman represents 13p per annum per sq. ft., will the hon. Gentleman ask the appropriate rent scrutiny board to determine a fair rent for this property?

Mr. Blaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, rents for Army quarters are assessed by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which applies a formula devised by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in the early part of 1970. As for the floor area, the hon. Gentleman will know that Army quarters are divided into different rent brackets and that within each bracket there is a great variety in size, location and age of house. As in civilian life, one does not necessarily pay proportionately more rent for a large old house than for a smaller modern one.

Missiles

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that Her Majesty's Forces are equipped with the latest radar computer-controlled ground-to-ground and ground-to-air missiles, comparable with those used in the recent Middle East war; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Our forces have a range of modern missiles well suited to their needs and there are further missiles in prospect. We are studying the lessons that are to be learned from the Middle East war, which will, of course, be a complex exercise.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons which have been learned by our forces from the Middle East war is that the Russian-manufactured missile guidance systems are infinitely more sophisticated than those of our forces? What study of those missile guidance systems is being carried out by our forces? Has my right hon. Friend sufficient funds to be able to develop whatever comes out of those studies?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not accept that the Russian missiles are necessarily better than ours. Some of them may be more modern, but others are not. It is a very complex question. We must study the differences of terrain, manpower and battle philosophies, and, therefore, it is impossible to reach a definite conclusion very quickly.

Mr. Paget: Will the Minister express some gratitude to Israel for the fact that we now have an opportunity to examine the weapons in detail, although we did little to earn it?

Mr. Gilmour: We always welcome an opportunity to examine as many weapons as we can.

Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he gave a very complacent reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins)? What steps are being taken to provide every platoon in the British Army with missiles which would enable it to destroy tanks and aircraft effectively?

Mr. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend probably knows, there are a number of weapons which we have not only in research and development but in production and under issue. If he can draw very quick and certain conclusions already from the Middle East war, I envy him his certainty, but I do not share it.

Mr. Rose: Has the Minister studied the spectacular success of the Gabriel missile in naval warfare? Will he try to arrange to import missiles of that type, but will he ask the Israeli Government not to include a provision that if we should need them they will no longer continue supplying them?

Mr. Gilmour: I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's question a little earlier. The efficacy of the Gabriel missile is one of many things we shall be studying.

Land

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department following the publication of the Nugent Report recommending 31,000 acres of Ministry of Defence land for release.

Mr. Blaker: As announced in the explanatory memorandum published with the committee's report, we have allowed a period for public comment and discussion on its recommendations. We have already received a substantial number of representations, which will be taken carefully into account before final decisions are made. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 16th October, we hope to make an announcement early in the New Year.—[Vol. 861, c. 27–28.]

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. But does he not think that the Government could make a statement very shortly saying that they will restore public access to those parts of the 31,000 acres where the public enjoyed a right of access before the lands were acquired by the Ministry of Defence, particularly the 16 miles of coastline included in the 31,000 acres?

Mr. Blaker: I do not think that it would be right to deal with the committee's recommendations piecemeal,

especially when we have set aside time for views from the public to be submitted. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 16th October that action on the coastline is already in hand.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that local opinion has trumpeted its opposition to the proposed transfer of a gunnery range from Shoeburyness to the Dornoch Firth? Will he bear in mind that since the Nugent Committee reported there have been considerable industrial developments in that area, which make the proposal completely out of date and one to be rejected?

Mr. Blaker: Representations have been received from groups in that area, and they will be borne in mind, along with other views.

Miss Quennell: What guarantee can my hon. Friend give that when former gunnery ranges are released disinfestation of all explosive objects has been carried out?

Mr. Blaker: The removal of dangerous objects will undoubtedly be a long and difficult process.

Mr. John: Does the Minister accept that the Nugent Committee proposed to transfer the gunnery range to Castle-martin without the public of that place having had an opportunity to give evidence to the committee of their opposition to the proposal? Will he now secure that the public has a right at a public inquiry to give evidence before a final decision is taken?

Mr. Blaker: With regard to a public inquiry, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said in answer to Questions recently. It is evident from the committee's report that it listened to many views from people in the area concerned, and a deputation from Castlemartin was received recently in my Department.

Houses

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will give an estimate of the number of houses used in the past by military personnel but at present empty.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Between 2,500 and 3,000 in the United Kingdom, excluding those under repair and in the process of disposal.

Mr. Price: Does the Minister agree that that is a fairly high figure, and that empty houses are a luxury we cannot afford? I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the decision to enter into negotiations with my local authority to dispose of 66 of those houses in Rugby, but may the remainder be considered as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree that it is a high figure, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are reasons. We are considering whether we can let the empty houses temporarily to local authorities, but this has always been found impossible. I am examining the other estates in the hon. Gentleman's constituency again, and I shall write to him about them.

Dr. David Owen: The figure is strikingly high. When the Services are increasing the number of people they evict from their quarters, is it justifiable in cities such as Plymouth—where there is an acute housing shortage—to continue to evict Service families, some of whom have been retired early from the Services and therefore cannot qualify to go on the council house list, while there are still empty houses left?

Mr. Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, when sailors are stationed in Plymouth it is not much good putting them in houses in Oxfordshire. We very much regret having to evict people, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience, we do it as little and as late as possible, but we must naturally give priority to people serving in the area.

Mr. Holland: How much of the increase in the number of empty houses of late is due to troop movements, to keeping houses available for troops returning from Ulster or other places abroad?

Mr. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend rightly surmises, those factors are part of the cause, but we are concerned to try to reduce the number of empty houses.

Recruiting

Mr. Ewing: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement

regarding the shortfall in recruits to the forces.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Recruitment to the Armed Forces has shown a marked downward trend in 1973, compared with satisfactory achievements in 1971 and the first part of 1972.

Mr. Ewing: Can the Minister give me an assurance that the Government have not discussed the possibility of reintroducing conscription to meet the shortfall? To remove all the uncertainty that prevails over the possibility of the reintroduction of conscription, will he make a definitive statement today that the Conservative Government will not reintroduce it?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not agree that there is uncertainty in the country about the matter, but I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no plans whatever to reintroduce conscription.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one effective way to improve recruiting would be to allow boys to leave school at 15, if they wish, and to continue their general education simultaneously with acquiring their military virtues? Will he have another go at my right hon. and fair Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to get her to change her mind about the matter?

Mr. Gilmour: It is too early to assess the permanent effect upon recruitment of raising the school leaving age, but I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we shall review the situation when the normal pattern of school leaving has been re-established.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement indicating the progress of adult recruiting for the Army over the last three years.

Mr. Blaker: After satisfactory achievements in 1971 and early 1972, recruitment to the Army showed a marked downward trend in 1973 and this has continued.

Mr. Cronin: Will this not have a prejudicial effect on the Army's efficiency? May I ask the hon. Gentleman to assure the House that effective measures are being taken to make the Army more attractive as a career for young men?

Mr. Blaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that present trained strengths are adequate to meet our immediate and long term commitments. As for remedial measures, we shall keep the situation under review. The raising of the school-leaving age, to which my right hon. Friend has referred, is one of the main factors causing the decline, and it is a little early to see what can be done about that.

Mr. Holland: To what extent is this a general Service problem and to what extent is it a purely Army problem?

Mr. Blaker: The problem is more acute in the Army than in the other Services.

Mr. David Clark: If the recruitment shortfall is not arrested, is the hon. Gentleman confident that the British Army can meet its obligations without conscription?

Mr. Blaker: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has just said on that matter.

Recruitment Advertisements

Mr. Lambie: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many representations he has received protesting against the use of the names of private firms in recruitment advertisements for the Armed Forces.

Mr. Buck: None, Sir.

Mr. Lambie: That is a strange answer in view of the letter that I have received from the Minister following representations that I made on this subject on behalf of the Irvine Trades Council. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the name "Guinness" has been used in numerous Army advertisements? Is he further aware that the Guinness Company has given £20,000 towards Tory Party funds? Although Guinness might be good for you and me, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Under-Secretary to guarantee that in any future advertising campaign for recruitment for the Army no company names, especially the names of companies which have contributed money towards Tory Party funds, will be used?

Mr. Buck: I am delighted to hear of the good sense of the Guinness Company, which frankly I did not know about. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has no connection with recruiting advertising.

Expenditure

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for defence spending for the years up to and including 1976.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: No, Sir. I must ask the hon. Member to await this year's Public Expenditure White Paper.

Mr. Allaun: Do the Government intend to adhere to the increase of 10 per cent. in real terms in arms spending as set out in their survey for the years to 1976? In view of the economic crisis and the demands made in certain Conservative quarters for cuts in Government spending in the public sector, it would be tragic if such cuts were made at a time when there was an increase in arms spending.

Mr. Gilmour: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his figure of 10 per cent. in real terms, because I do not accept it. I must ask him to await the Public Expenditure White Paper for the exact figures.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend make clear to the House the implications for this country of a £1,000 million cut in defence expenditure advocated at the Labour Party conference, particularly the consequences in terms of employment in defence industries and the security of the country?

Mr. Gilmour: A cut of £1,000 million would mean an end of the dockyards and of BAOR, a great cut in employment, and the virtual crippling of our Armed Forces. It is fair to point out that some hon. Gentleman opposite advocate a cut of only £500 million. I think that is the policy of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). The Leader of the Opposition goes for £1,000 million. We cannot know which is the real policy.

Mr. Dalyell: How does the Minister reconcile some extremely expensive projects—for example, the MRCA, the through-deck cruiser and Sea Wolf—maturing in 1976–77 with the undertakings given to us yesterday by the Prime Minister about the rise in public expenditure? The Government cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Gilmour: There is no need to have it both ways. Public expenditure in defence and elsewhere is carefully planned over a number of years.

Later—

Mr. Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of which I have given notice to the Minister of State for Defence. I raise it now rather than wasting time in Question Time.
A few minutes ago I asked the Minister whether it was the Government's intention to adhere to the 10 per cent. increase in arms spending laid down in the Government survey of expenditure to 1976. The Minister replied that he had no idea where I had obtained that information. Although I know that you are not responsible, Mr. Speaker, for what Ministers say, surely it is not in order for a Minister deliberately to mislead the House. Either the Minister was deliberately misleading the House or else he did not know, in which case he is not entitled to hold the high office that he holds.

Mr. Gilmour: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice that he would raise this matter. The figure that I had in my head was the 2·4 per cent. annual increase. I agree that, on the basis of last year's expenditure White Paper, this aggregates out to the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave. He was right and I was wrong, and I therefore apologise to him and to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am still not sure whether it was a point of order.

RAF Upper Heyford

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will pay an official visit to RAF Upper Heyford.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I have at present no plans to visit Upper Heyford.

Mr. Jenkins: If the right hon. Gentleman does make a visit, he will discover that the United States aircraft there are assigned to NATO. Yet these same aircraft were recently placed on alert by direct control from the United States. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the situation and recognise that political control over the military is of the essence

and that any degree of alert of troops stationed in this country, if the Government are not fully informed of it in advance, constitutes a breach of the principle of political control of the military in this country?

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman has got it quite wrong. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear on 30th October, first, this was a relatively low level alert which did not involve any immediate prospect of action, and, secondly, military facilities in this country granted to the United States are subject to an agreement that any question of their operational use should be a matter of joint consultation with us. That did not arise in that instance.

Mr. Marten: On a more practical note, if my right hon. Friend visits that aerodrome, which abuts on my constituency, may I ask him to visit the local villages and discuss the soundproofing of houses?

Mr. Gilmour: I will certainly do that. I am also considering the other question raised by my hon. Friend of whether the road should be closed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CBI (MEETINGS)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister what talks he has had with the CBI about the management of the economy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Since May this year I have had a series of meetings with the CBI at which many aspects of the management of the economy were discussed. The last such meeting was on 16th October.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Prime Minister aware that meaningful exchanges with the CBI must have confirmed what the Opposition repeatedly warned during the summer, namely, that the economy would run into capacity limitations by the autumn? Does he acknowledge that his difficulties arise not so much from energy and oil shortages as from his gambles on growth, on capacity, on the balance of payments and on stage 3, none of which is coming off?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not manage to make a speech yesterday in the debate.
That is not the advice that the CBI has given us. All the information that we have is that certain areas of industry in this country are still not working to full capacity.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone expects him to keep in the closest contact with the CBI and the TUC and to share their experience and knowledge, but that, they would not expect him, having done that and come to a conclusion in the nation's interest, to be bullied off course as the Opposition were on "In Place of Strife"?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This question specifically refers to meetings between myself and the CBI, but the CBI and the TUC are constantly having meetings with Ministers and officials of all Government Departments in Whitehall.

Mr. Healey: As the Government's latest figures show that in the last three months prices have been rising very much faster than wages, will the right hon. Gentleman now accept the advice of the President of the CBI—namely, to maintain statutory controls on prices while removing statutory controls from wages?

The Prime Minister: I heard that remark in the debate yesterday and I am still trying to get a trace on it, because it is certainly not the official view of the CBI which has been expressed throughout the last 18 months in the talks that we have had.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON VISITS

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Health and Social Services and the Home Office in the provision of financial assistance to those wishing to visit relatives in prison.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There is detailed and continuing consultation between the Departments as part of a review of the existing financial arrangements.

Mr. Lamont: Is my right hon. Friend aware that financial assistance for visits is not available to the relatives of those

who are held on remand in prison and that in many prisons visiting facilities are inadequate? This subject has been under review by the two Departments since 1971. Should it not be speeded up, as it is very important that prisoners should have the incentive to maintain contacts with their families?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. My information is that the relatives of prisoners on remand are already eligible for assistance on the same scale as the relatives of convicted prisoners. I will gladly have this point checked further and write to my hon. Friend about it.
On the time taken to deal with the matter of visiting facilities, I should point out that there was one review in 1971, as a result of which action was taken, and a further review in July of this year. The matter has now been further examined.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am sure that the House of Commons appreciates that strengthening family ties can be one of the crucial ways to persuade a man to go straight. Will the Prime Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to consider making fares available for families on supplementary benefit not just for one visit every six weeks, which is the normal allowance, but whenever visits are possible, within reasonable limits?

The Prime Minister: I shall see that that is considered in the review. The information that I have is that visits are possible once every four weeks, and also on special occasions, but I shall ensure that the point raised by the hon. Lady is further examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for economic affairs to himself.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) on 6th November.—[Vol. 863, c. 123.]

Mr. Meacher: In view of the Prime Minister's keenness for expansion, may I ask whether he is aware that last year industrialists and financiers showed what


they thought of his policy by generating no capital outflow over and above the total capital inflow of more than £500 million? When he exhorts workers to let profits rise to promote job expansion and growth, ought not he to mention that he means not at home, but abroad?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that it had for long been accepted that one of the strongest parts of the economy is invisibles from our investments overseas that enable us greatly to increase our visible exports because partly-made goods can then be exported to the factories that we have overseas and greatly increase our trade. This has been going on since the war between the Governments of all industrial and developing countries, and we should take the utmost advantage of it.

Mr. More: Is not an important part of expansion increased investment in new buildings, plant and machinery? Are not the prospects for this year good, and is it not possible that 1974 might be a record year in this all-important sphere?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is true. Those are some of the facts which I tried to bring out in the debate yesterday.

Mr. Ashton: When the right hon. Gentleman was President of the Board of Trade in 1964, Labour won the ensuing General Election. In 1965, when the right hon. Gentleman was Leader of the Opposition and in charge of economic affairs, we went on to get a bigger majority in 1966.

Mr. Redmond: What about 1969?

Mr. Ashton: Will the right hon. Gentleman now take charge of them again?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman omits 1970.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIME

Mr. Fowler: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Home Secretary on 2nd November at Exeter on crime represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in that speech the Home

Secretary announced the first significant reduction in crime in this country for 20 years? Is not that a considerable achievement indeed which will be widely welcomed by the public, and does it not fully justify the Government in taking off the restriction on police recruitment which was imposed by the previous Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: A substantial reduction in the crime figures is widely welcomed throughout the country. It justifies lifting the figure on recruiting that was imposed by the previous administration, and police strength recently passed the 100,000 mark for the first time.

Mr. Kaufman: As crime among young people in the inner cities is one of the most disturbing aspects of crime, and as it is generally recognised that the best way of reducing the causes of crime among young people in inner cities is to provide constructive facilities for them, will the Prime Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to remove his veto on the construction of a youth centre in my constituency?

The Prime Minister: I shall ask my right hon. Friend about it, but if the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question to my right hon. Friend he will discuss it in detail.

Mr. Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the outstanding contributions which the Government have made towards dealing with crime is the strengthening of the probation service? Everyone welcomes that. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, however, that this is an indispensable service in any fight against crime and will he ensure that there is a recognition of the need further to increase recruitment and to improve conditions in the service?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend, and my right hon. Friend is well aware of the point. It is of the greatest importance.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that, while there has been a welcome reduction in non-violent crimes, the figure for violent crimes is still rising rapidly? There is a serious shortage of nearly one in four policemen in London alone, and the


probation service feels very bitter about the continuation of selection and grading in its salaries.

The Prime Minister: On the question of crimes with violence, I am told that robbery, including mugging, has decreased by 11·7 per cent., but there are particular forms of violent crime in which, I agree, there has been an increase. What is to be welcomed is that overall there has been a decline.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST

Mr. Rost: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to the Middle East.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Rost: While none of us would wish to understate the shorter-term effects on our economy of the oil famine, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the Arabs could have done us a good turn and that in the longer term this could be a blessing in disguise as there is now a fresh incentive for us to become self-sufficient as quickly as possible in energy resources and to convert and use our resources more efficiently in the future than we have done in the past?

The Prime Minister: It is right that we should give the greatest priority to work on other forms of energy, and this is being carried through both with the development of North Sea oil and with the use of nuclear energy. In the meantime, until those sources can give us more energy on a considerable scale, the burden which the country will have to bear will be considerable.

Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to expand on his remarks yesterday about the attitude of the Arab countries being likely to be against their long-term advantage? How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to ensure concerted action by the Western European countries, Japan and the United States to negotiate a long-term energy policy, particularly in relation to oil, between the producing and consuming nations?

The Prime Minister: All three groups mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are represented in the OECD, together with

other countries, and we consider that that is a forum where discussions can best take place.

Mr. Walters: Should my right hon. Friend visit the Middle East, he would be able to say that Britain's foreign, policy, clearly enunciated three years ago, was subsequently adopted in Europe. Would not it be helpful if, in the future, closer consultation with Europe enabled a European policy to emerge before a crisis developed?

The Prime Minister: I think one has to take into account the fact that the Community was enlarged less than 11 months ago and that it had been preoccupied in the political sphere with transatlantic relations. It is right that the Community should now devote its attention to its relations with other parts of the world, and the summit meeting in December of the Heads of Governments will be able to contribute to that.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will maintain the view that North Sea and Celtic Sea oil are a British reserve and not a European one for the future?

The Prime Minister: That is the Government's view.

Oral Answers to Questions — DR. AL ZAYYAT

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he has plans to meet President Sadat's representative, Dr. al Zayyat, on his visit to the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: Dr. Zayyat called on me on 7th November as the special representative of President Sadat. We had a very useful discussion about the situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Roberts: Are the Egyptian Government, and indeed the Arab States, fully aware of the harmful effects on underdeveloped countries of the present oil cuts imposed on the developed countries? Are they aware, too, that the oil cuts are more likely to delay than to hasten a peaceful settlement in the Middle East?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the Arab countries are aware of the impact of the oil cuts on the developing world.


I know that the leaders of a number of the developing countries have made that information available to the Arab States and that they are aware of it.

Mr. Paget: Will the Prime Minister point out that the way to meet the threat to our oil supplies is to create solidarity among the consumers similar to that among the suppliers—and that includes Holland and Japan—rather than try to squirm out of the risk by methods more adequately described in military than in parliamentary language?

The Prime Minister: This country has adhered to the same policy since September 1970 when it was publicly expressed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and it has not changed in any way.
The accusations made by the hon. and learned Gentleman are unjustified. Perhaps he will also consider, where countries are prepared to deny supplies even though it damages themselves because they have large financial reserves, what consumers then do. If he does that, the hon. and learned Gentleman will have some realisation of the difficulty of getting consumers to agree about their policy.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What information did my right hon. Friend receive about the rearmament of Egypt and other belligerents in the recent conflict from the Warsaw Pact countries? Since Her Majesty's Government have suspended the supply of arms to those belligerents, is he in touch with other Governments about the balance of arms in the Middle East?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, we are in contact with other Governments about the supply of arms to the Middle East and their balance, but I could not confirm that our main source of information is the Soviet Union.

Mr. Harold Wilson: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that there has been no change in Middle East policy, since in 1967 the two-day arms embargo was ended as soon as it became clear that Russia would not adhere to it and the present Foreign Secretary said that that policy was right? Second, does he not recognise that there has been a big change in foreign policy and in policy in relation to the fighting, in that in 1967

we took very seriously, and took the lead on, the question of the freedom of the seas in the Straits of Teheran but he did not seem to care when we asked him about Bab-el-Mandeb?

The Prime Minister: All this was dealt with in the debate by my right hon. Friend. The Leader of the Opposition seems quite incapable of ever listening to any facts or any arguments. If he had been listening to my reply a few minutes ago, he would have heard me tell the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that there had been no change in policy under this Government since it was announced in 1970. That was what I was making clear in answer to his implied accusation that we had changed in the recent war in support of the Arab countries.

Mr. Wilson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the September 1970 speech was purely about one clause of Resolution No. 242, but that in the matter of Bab-el-Mandeb he is quite wrong? Would he say what the Foreign Secretary said in answer to that? He did not reply to that. Would the right hon. Gentleman say what he thinks his right hon. Friend's answer was?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is now completely shifting his ground because he has referred back to 1967. I was dealing with Government policy since 1970; the question of any alleged blockade on Bab-el-Mandeb arose not in 1970 but only in the last few weeks. The position that we have taken there is exactly similar to the position on the freedom of the seas.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on eliminating unnecessary delays during Question Time? It may not have escaped your notice that the habit of being polite by thanking a Minister for his reply has been an increasing practice in the last few weeks. As a result, sometimes one, two or three Questions are not reached. Today, my very important Question on Wormwood Scrubs would have been reached but for this practice. Therefore, although I am not asking you to give a ruling, would you advise the House that the thanks


may be taken as read and that we can proceed with the supplementary question without delay?

Mr. Speaker: I must say that I have not noticed much of the politeness to which the hon. Member refers. Nevertheless I still hope that hon. Members will consider conciseness and shortening their questions.

BILLS PRESENTED

CHANNEL TUNNEL

Mr. Secretary Rippon, supported by Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. John Davis, Mr. John Peyton, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, and Mr. Keith Speed, presented a Bill to provide for the construction and operation of a railway tunnel system under the English Channel, together with associated works; to make provision for guaranteeing loans and for the expenditure necessary for and in connection with the construction and operation of that system and those works; to constitute a Board to participate in the operation of that system; to incorporate part of that system into the United Kingdom and to provide for the jurisdiction of courts in Great Britain over matters

occurring in that system and trains proceeding through that system; to provide for the incidence and computation of tax in connection with the construction and operation of that system; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

FUEL AND ELECTRICITY (CONTROL)

Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. James Prior, Mr. Secretary Rippon, Mr. Tom Boardman, and Mr. Patrick Jenkin presented a Bill to make temporary provision for controlling the production, supply, acquisition and use of certain substances and of electricity; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered, That, at this day's Sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on the Motion relating to Public Services in Greater London not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Prior.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — LONDON (PUBLIC SERVICES)

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I beg to move,
That this House censures Her Majesty' Government for allowing the essential public services of the capital city to deteriorate to the point where they are now reaching breakdown and are causing grave hardship to the population of Greater London.
The Government must be aware that in raising this matter we are reflecting the view of every responsible person in London, whether employer or employee, working in public or private enterprise, and of all shades of political opinion. Seldom has there been such agreement on what is wrong in London.
Our charge against the Government is that they have been fully aware of what has been happening over the past three years. They have been continually pressed to assist in taking action to correct the situation but, like Nero, they have fiddled while London was being virtually brought to a standstill. Our problems were manifest long before phase 3. Life was being made utterly impossible before then.
The aspirations of people who live in London are not absurdly high. First, they seek homes of the right size for their families, in a fit state, with modern amenities and at a price they can afford. Second, they want job opportunities which match their skills, thereby allowing for improvement of their wages and living standards. Third, they want good public transport facilities which will enable them to move about freely and at will.
Fourth, they want an education system and service which satisfies the needs of their children and young people. Fifth, they are looking for adequate hospital and social services. Sixth, they want the knowledge that an efficient police force exists to protect them from the wrongdoer and to maintain law and order in London. Last, they want a happy environment established to allow them to enjoy a full life.
These are broadly their needs, and they are not unreasonable. But what is the reality? In housing, the position gets worse daily. Not only are fewer houses being built, in accordance with Government policy, but those which are being built are costing a fortune—a major factor being the price of land, which the Government have done absolutely nothing about; on the contrary, they have encouraged land speculators. It is now impossible to buy a house in London for under £12,000, either new or second hand, which rules out anyone earning less than about £5,000 a year.
At the same time, the number of homeless people is growing daily, resulting in local authorities having to house people in hotels, because the law places an obligation on the authorities to provide accommodation for any homeless people in their area. The result is a staggering rise in costs, which further depletes the financial resources of local authorities. Only this morning I read in the South London Press that the London borough of Southwark, perhaps one of the premier authorities of the country, which is still building 2,000 homes annually, is having to pay £138,000 for accommodating homeless families in hotels. That is a staggering situation.
Furthermore, a large proportion of London' housing stock is old and is deteriorating far more rapidly than part of it is being improved. The Government sit back and do nothing. They do plenty of talking but we get no action. The housing lists get longer. We have the paradoxical situation that the population of London becomes smaller while housing lists become longer.
What of job opportunities in London? We have lost about 500,000 manufacturing jobs. This means that large numbers of people are unable to find any suitable employment at a rate of pay which is commensurate with the high costs in London and at a location which is near to their homes. Not only is the cost of living in terms of food and services much higher in London but over the last two years the Government have deliberately added a further £1·50 the rent bill just to satisfy a doctrinaire party-political whim.
The result is that few people are now available for manning essential services


in London because the younger families are being forced out of the centre, thereby leaving an ageing population, which in turn is more demanding of the public services, which are deteriorating.
It is now virtually impossible to recruit and to maintain staff for public services in London. The staff shortage of London Transport is now at a crisis point. The number of vacancies for bus drivers is more than 2,000, or 15 per cent. of the establishment. There is a shortage of more than 1,000 conductors, or 12 per cent. We are short of 290 guards on the Underground, or 10 per cent., and 350 short in station staff generally, or 33 per cent. In addition, there are serious shortages of engineers for the permanent way and signalling departments. British Rail is 644 guards and more than 2,000 station and depôt staff short in London alone.
As a result of these shortages the services are becoming very unsatisfactory, resulting in an increased use of private cars in peak periods. This in turn creates even further difficulties for the bus services in running to schedule. The result of that cycle is the all-too-familiar experience of traffic being brought to a standstill.
The Prime Minister thought he could solve the problem by making a telephone call to Tokyo. He was apparently told, in no uncertain terms, by Sir Desmond Plummer that Government policy was the root cause of the trouble. That was over a year ago. The problem simply became worse. Yet the Prime Minister can only be rude and offensive to Sir Reginald Goodwin, instead of agreeing to meet him to discuss solutions. Unless and until the London Transport Executive is able not only to pay its staff sufficient to compensate for the high cost of living in London but to give additional incentives to attract people who have to suffer the added pressures involved in working for London Transport, transport services must break down.
Although I know that the Chairman of the London Transport Executive does not wish to over-dramatise the situation, there can be little doubt in anyone' mind that the reduced services being provided are causing great hardship to Londoners and call for urgent Government action. It is no good for the Minister to keep repeating

"Phase 3" There was a crisis before phase 3.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us for how long the unions were obstructing the recruitment of women as bus drivers? Is it not only in the past few weeks that the unions have given way?

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Since 1906.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point, which he and I could discuss elsewhere—

Mr. Tebbit: Answer.

Mr. Brown: —but it does not into the argument I am making. The Minister may have the answer for the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I am pleading for the Minister to answer it in depth.
The education services in London are close to breakdown. In some areas, in mine for example, they have almost broken down. Generally, there is a shortfall of about 250 full-time and 275 part-time teachers in London. Translated into real terms, this means that the educational standards of about 26 London schools have been reduced by more than 20,000 pupil-hours a week.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: Disgraceful.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. It is absolutely disgraceful. These study hours can never be recovered, and this will prejudice the chances of students in examinations.
This has been the situation since September. With only normal wastage with which to contend, it is expected that the number of schools going on to part-time education will be increased by a further 10. This will affect more than 28,000 children in London. Yet the Government have done nothing to help them.

Mr. Toby Jesse: rose—

Mr. Brown: The ILEA is satisfied, as are local education authorities in London, that unless it can offer substantial financial increases the run down in the education service will continue and at an even greater rate. We have the absurd situation of the Secretary of State sitting on the sidelines wringing her hands and


saying "Woe is me", but at the same time she makes quite sure that her representative on the Burnham Committee blocks every attempt that is made to resolve the situation. That is little short of a scandal.
In September I met the Secretary of State to discuss a school in my area where children are out of school for up to two half days a week. As a result, she asked for a report from her inspector, which could only confirm what I had told her. She also sent her Under-Secretary to the school. His contribution was unique. On leaving the school, having seen the disgraceful state of affairs, he is reported in The Times as saying
Thank God for public schools
Still nothing is done.
Perhaps the more frightening aspect of this situation is that it is already known that next term, due to additional shortages arising from resignations, some schools may well collapse. The teachers themselves are fed up with being forced to give second-class education to the children of London and they find no job satisfaction in working in London, quite apart from the absurdly low wages that are paid for the job. It is now impossible for teachers, either single or married, to find accommodation in London at rents which they can afford. The London weighting in no way reflects the increase in the cost of living, and for the Secretary of State and the Cabinet to authorise an extra 36p a week borders upon lunacy.
What the teachers in London want is a fair deal—no more and no less. Teaching in stress areas is an obstacle to recruitment of staff. Therefore, a positive approach is necessary from the Government. They should recognise that the term "London weighting" is now an outmoded concept. Their disastrous economic policy has destroyed its meaning. What we require is a London allowance made up of two parts, the first relating to the increased costs imposed on people working in London, and the second relating to a financial incentive, to reward people who are prepared to sacrifice themselves by working for a public service in London under the stress conditions about which I have been speaking.
Another area that is reaching breaking point in London, particularly in the centre of London, is the hospital service.

For some time now it has been increasingly difficult to recruit staff over a wide range of skills. For example, resident junior doctors are working very long hours, which is quite unacceptable, particularly having regard to the disaster which may occur because of a poor diagnosis being made by a tired doctor. In any event, when the present hours are rationalised there will be a serious shortage of junior medical staff. This will have an immediate effect on the 24-hour commitment of hospitals throughout the year. There is an acute shortage of staff such as radiographers, pharmacists and physiotherapists. That means that the back-up staff of the medical team are just not available, while those who are in post suffer overwork and stress and are finally forced to apply for jobs in other areas. That only adds to the crisis. All this is at a time when the exhortation is being made to hospitals in central London to extend their rehabilitation service.
It is interesting to note that physiotherapists and staff nurses with three years' training earn less than a traffic warden who trains for three weeks. There is a serious shortage of ancillary staff such as cooks, catering and domestic supervisors, porters, orderlies, ambulance drivers, carpenters, electricians and maintenance fitters. Since 1st April 1973 foreign ancillary staffs are no longer required to work in hospitals in order to obtain work permits. It is a losing battle to attract and retain these key personnel.
Who could blame a man for not becoming a hospital porter when his wages in central London for a 40-hour week would be £21·88 for the lowest grade and £23·50 for the highest. If he were to work seven days a week on shift he would still not reach the average level of wages for the nation. It is impossible for junior medical staff, ancillary workers and nurses to obtain housing in central London near their hospital because of the massive office development taking place. The rental of flats is far too high for their low wages.
At the beginning of this year I raised with the Secretary of State for the Environment the fact that the GLC—at that time Conservative controlled—was offering homes for sale in London close to the central hospitals. It said then that


it would require total gross monthly earnings to be at least five times the monthly mortgage repayments. For example, to obtain a loan of £8,000 repayable over 25 years on which the monthly repayments would amount to £50·60, proof of income of around £250 a month, or £58·50 a week, would be required. What chance would any junior medical staff nurses or ancillary workers have of obtaining the council property then being offered for sale?
Consequently, it is becoming more and more difficult to main a 24-hour staffing in all hospitals in central London. This is a vitally important issue for the people of London. Hospitals in the central area are now having seriously to consider closing down some of their operating theatres and cutting back on some of their specialties unless urgent action is taken to recruit staff. The hospital service is relying entirely on the good will and sense of vocation of the staff making them stay at their posts, but there is increasing evidence of the mushrooming of agencies.
Staff are now being supplied to the hospitals at a cost far in excess of anything the hospital service can afford. Yet the Government are prepared to pay an outrageous price to the agencies rather than give the staff directly a few pounds extra. In addition, hospitals are now busy putting up the price of meals—in some cases by 30 per cent. It is little wonder that staffs are becoming cynical at this unacceptable face of Government policy.
Local government in London is facing similar problems. While the rest of the country is only 5 per cent. down on its establishment of public health inspectors, in London the figure is 22 per cent. More than 17 per cent. of weights and measures inspectors' posts are vacant. The figure for valuers is 30 per cent., for planners 28 per cent. and for architects 23 per cent. There is an annual turnover of 25 per cent. among social workers, and building inspectors are in short supply, which has an immediate impact on public safety. I am advised that in many cases London is failing to meet its statutory obligations in this respect and is at risk to legal action.
This situation can only get worse since after 1st April 1974 all employees of local authorities in London will be able

to apply for jobs in other parts of the country where they will obtain more money for the same work in much more congenial surroundings with a home and garden. The future, therefore, looks very bleak for London in this respect.
I could go on cataloguing the disgraceful state the Government have allowed to develop in London. The police establishment is down by 5,000—20 per cent. of the total—and is still falling. The Post Office is 3,500 down on its establishment for postmen—30 per cent. of the staff—and that, too, is still falling. The only things that are going up under the Tory Government are food and other prices, land and house prices, rents and interest charges, crime figures, the number of spivs and property speculators and their empty office blocks.
So much could have been done. Why did not the Government bring in a Minister with the responsibility of co-ordinating affairs in Greater London and building up a master plan with the responsible authorities in order to analyse the effects and determine action? Why did they not recognise the effects of the continual rundown of industry in London? Why did the various Ministers keep hiding behind pathetic excuses rather than take action on the facts as they knew them to be? Why have the Government refused to listen to the complaints made month after month and year after year in this House by hon. Members on both sides? Why have they chosen deliberately to stir up trouble in every major group of public workers in London, including their own civil servants, rather than getting down to seeking a solution to the urgent problems facing public services in London? Why did they not evaluate the cost to industry and commerce in general of running down the public services and use that figure as a back-cloth to the cost of solution?
Why did the Government not undertake their own review of London pay differentials, of the direct effect on housing and travel costs, of travel time and of the increasing pressures of working in London? I submit that we have made out a substantial case against the Government which fully warrants the vote of censure. We can only hope that the Minister will deal with these specific issues and will tell the House what is


intended to be done. It will be unacceptable to have a dirge about phase 3, the Pay Board and all that razzamatazz. The present Home Secretary successfully persuaded the people of London against any argument based on phase 3, the Pay Board and the rest. The House will recall that back in 1968 the right hon. Gentleman said:
One of the hallmarks of freedom is surely the right of people to determine their own earnings without State intervention or direction, whether they do so by collective bargaining or by individual negotiation.
In the same speech the right hon. Gentleman said:
What we reject is the altogether excessive weight which the Government have placed on incomes policy which they have not been able to bear over the last three years and which they will not be able to bear in future. What we also reject is the use of statutory control, of legal compulsion. We reject legal compulsion on the grounds both of practicability and principle
He went on:
To all those who have come to believe in the essential need for a statutory incomes policy as a centrepiece of economic policy we say, look at the facts, because we genuinely do not believe that the facts have ever been properly looked at by the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May 1968 Vol. 765 c 315–24.]
The people in London bought that story. It is no good the Minister now giving us a lot of arguments about statutory prices and incomes policies, because his right hon. Friend destroyed those arguments for a long time.
Therefore, we require positive proposals today and a programme with a time scale. The people of London are just about fed up with the way the Government have allowed the public services to run down, and they are demanding action, as every London Member here on both sides of the House is aware. But the tragedy is that it will take time to halt the slide that has been allowed to develop and to produce circumstances wherein London can once again become a thriving city for those who live there, and for that we will never forgive or forget this Tory Government.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I should like to say that there are well over 20 hon. Members who want to speak in this debate. It is only a

3-hour debate, so I hope that hon. Members will have regard to that fact.

Mr. Lipton: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. There are two London Members who ought to be here to answer the devastating indictment to which you, Mr. Speaker, have just listened. One is the Prime Minister, who is a London Member, and the other is the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is also a London Member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for a very long time. He knows that that is not a point of order.

4.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): In answer to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), inadequate as I may be compared with some of my colleagues, I have employment responsibilities—and there is a wide area of employment responsibilities here—and I can claim to have been a London Member once. The electorate of Brentford and Chiswick showed great ingratitude in 1966, but I am glad to say that in another part of the country the electorate put me in. But I am well aware of London's problems. Like many other hon. Members, I live in London.
There are two ways of approaching a short debate such as this: one is to accuse the Opposition of political opportunism and to respond in kind; the other is to recognise that there is a serious problem here, and attempt to analyse it and put it into perspective, even allowing for the exaggerations of the Opposition. I make no complaint about exaggerations; all Oppositions tend at times to exaggerate—this one more than most. But I should like to analyse and put this matter into perspective, and try to raise it a little above the ordinary level of superficial political debate. My hon. Friends and I will listen to the ideas put forward by hon. Members, such as those which the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) has put forward, so that we can get an appreciation of what hon. Members in the London area think about this problem.
I would say straight away that the essential services in London and elsewhere are facing real and pressing problems, and that this is a matter for considerable concern. I do not want to


minimise the problems at all. I want instead to bring out the real issues, which are not, as some people might suggest, easy, short-term and capable of instant answers. I want, too, to give the House a just appreciation of the situation, which the terms of the motion signally fail to do. We are here talking about a number of different services, and the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury has gone through a long list, as he is fully entitled to do.
We are talking about 55,000 London Transport workers, nearly 60,000 teachers, 20,000 policemen, 5,000 firemen, 100,000 health staff—the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury devoted a good deal of time to health—and 140,000 civil servants, of whom 40 per cent. provide essential over-the-counter social services within the metropolitan area. We are also talking about postmen, British Rail staff and some local government officers. All of these services are currently facing staffing difficulties, not only in London but in many other large cities and in the great conurbations the world over. This is an endemic problem. In New York and Tokyo it is a big problem, as it is in places such as Glasgow and Liverpool. It is not just a short-term problem; it has much longer-term aspects, and I shall return to them in a moment.
It is worth reminding ourselves that in many cases others are far behind us in the standards of service that we continue to take for granted in a place such as London. Earlier this year the Layfield Report was able to refer to London's services as "the envy of the world", and to point out that many growing cities are still investing large sums of money in an attempt to catch up with them. They have been doing that and, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, they still are. The current difficulties are concerned not only with the recruitment of new staff but with increasing wastage and increasing turnover of experienced staff—sometimes, as matters have turned out, staff that has been expensively trained to no great purpose.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, he must be entirely unaware of the catastrophic decline every day and every

week during the last few months, which has made the situation worse. It is no use the hon. Gentleman referring to the position of London Transport as it was at the time of the Layfield Report. The problem is getting worse day by day, and we want to know what he will do about it.

Mr. Smith: I said at the beginning of my speech that I do not minimise the problem, and that I am well aware that the situation is deteriorating. But we must try to get it into perspective. Without wishing to weary the House with too many figures, I should like to mention a few. London Transport is short of some 6,500 staff, or about 1 per cent.; the London Fire Brigade is more than 8 per cent. below strength; the ambulance staff is about the same; and vacancies for postmen in London are around 13 per cent. of existing staff.

Mr. George Cunningham: What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about it?

Mr. Smith: I am coming to that.
But equivalent shortages exist in many large provincial cities. In Glasgow and Liverpool the bus services are more than 10 per cent. under-staffed; in Coventry and Birmingham shortages of postmen are between 13 per cent. and 15 per cent. Examples could be multiplied. In one of the main towns that I represent, Leamington Spa, there is a chronic shortage of postmen—the numbers are 15 per cent. down—while in rural Warwickshire the refuse is not properly collected because there is a shortage of drivers. It is a problem that extends well beyond London. In all these cases, except for the schools, the situation is worse, and in some cases substantially worse, than it was a year ago, and in some areas the pressures are more acute than in others.
But, despite what the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury has said, the situation in the schools is rather different. While inner London schools are now about 11 per cent. below the quota of teachers as a group, the outer London boroughs are above the quota by about the same percentage. But certain schools in both inner and outer London are experiencing staffing difficulties, largely because the raising of the school leaving age has increased the demand for teachers


and accentuated the shortages of specialised teachers. A few schools are providing less than normal school hours at the present time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is concerned that pupils should not lose any of their schooling, and that problems of distribution of teachers should be overcome as soon as possible. This matter is very much in the forefront of her mind.
All the public services are, therefore, under considerable strain in varying degrees.

Mr. Robert Mellish: The London allowance for teachers was agreed by the Burnham Committee and accepted in principle by the employer—the ILEA. Why did the Minister turn it down if the problems and shortages were recognised, and why did she create even more problems and shortages by her direct action?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating me on the question of pay, but, if I am permitted, I shall come to that. But it does not at all help these public services or the public, and it does not contribute to a proper understanding of the situation, to suggest that these services are virtually on the verge of breakdown. They are not on the verge of breakdown. Nevertheless, since the services are fundamental and every other activity depends in some degree on their continued efficiency and their improvement, we must take their difficulties very seriously.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: rose—

Mr. Smith: No, I cannot give way again. I must not go on for too long, or I shall keep other speakers out of the debate. I did, in deference, give way to the right hon. Gentleman the Opposition Chief Whip.
As the House knows, if it is honest, there is nothing new about shortages in manpower in public services in the major cities. As long ago as 1964 the Phelps Brown Committee referred to shortages of busmen, which had been persistent and acute since 1952. I remember myself as a former London Member giving evidence to that committee about deterioration in bus services in West London. The current number of notified unfilled vacancies for road passenger transport workers

in London is still much less than the number notified in July 1966; the vacancies notified to my Department for British Rail staff remain lower than they were in 1966.
To some extent—perhaps to a large extent—the difficulties in the public services are cyclical. They recur in all periods when unemployment is low, or reducing—as it is today in London. They are shared in varying degrees with other sectors of employment. It is not unusual at times of high demand for labour for employers to be operating 10 per cent. below optimum need. If we take all employments together, there are now two notified vacancies in the London area to every unemployed person.
I was very interested to hear the Chairman of the London Transport Executive acknowledge, in a recent television programme, that London Transport was no more short of staff than most large employers in the public as well as in the private sector. That is broadly correct, according to the expert advice I have received.
In one sector for which I have a special departmental responsibility, the hotel and catering trades, there are as many notified vacancies as there were in 1966 when unemployment was even lower. This is the price of growth. This is the price of getting unemployment down to the level where the labour market is under strain. I ask Labour members which is the kind of problem they would sooner live with—a million unemployed, or else the strains and inconveniences of growth? Growth is bound to bring about labour supply problems, and the only way to keep growth going is to get more productivity. There are now fewer unemployed in London than at any time since 1966, when the Labour Government clapped on their controls and wage freeze.
The Labour Party should sometimes remember these things. I have stood at this Dispatch Box on occasions in the last 18 months and been assailed by Labour Members about the unacceptable figure of 1 million unemployed. Among those who assailed me were Opposition Members representing London constituencies. But here they are in a different situation. There is now a figure of only 1·1 unemployed and far more


jobs are chasing people who are unemployed.

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Smith: I have not time to give way.

Mr. Cunningham: Windy.

Mr. Smith: No, I am not windy, but I am conscious of the time factor since there are many hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate.
What is the right attitude in such circumstances? Is it right to bleat and posture about the difficulties, or else to look for ways—and there are ways—of using available manpower more effectively?

Mr. Cunningham: Then tell us what they are.

Mr. Smith: I shall tell the House. For example, London Transport has made a great deal of progress already in one-man operation on its buses and still has some of its programme to carry out. It is pressing for the much greater use of bus lanes to speed buses and thereby increase capacity. There is also one-man operation of trains, and London Transport is discussing with the unions scope for more extensive employment of women. I have been interested in and heartened by the progress made in the employment of women bus drivers. That is the kind of co-operation we need—and in present circumstances are entitled to ask for—from employers, unions and the people concerned.

Mr. Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that London Transport in the light of its experience has decided not to proceed with one-man buses in the centre of town? They only hold up the traffic and lose all the advantages gained by the provision of bus lanes. The only alternative is to pay more so that one can get the staff.

Mr. Smith: London Transport is proceeding with this proposal in the outer areas. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will deal with that point when he replies to the debate.
I turn to pay and incomes policy, which is an important issue. I have not

responded to the invitations of the Opposition to deal with nothing else, because these matters have to be seen in perspective.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about London Transport, is he aware that the Victoria to Walthamstow line has a train which does not require a driver at all, but there is a person who sits there basically for public relations purposes?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the situation. This shows what can be achieved with rationalisation and better productivity. It behoves us all—employers, unions and everybody else—to use the best resources in this situation.
On pay and incomes, I do not believe that even if pay in these services could be raised above the levels prevailing in other employments it would be easy, or even possible, to get all the staff that are wanted. I am convinced that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to recruitment in many of the services is the unsocial and difficult hours involved and the need to work to schedule. If other job opportunities are easily available, people will shun jobs which have these conditions attached to them. This is a matter of vital importance. It is a growing problem which affects us all, and it is something of which the country must take heed as the years go by. But this does not apply only to London. It applies over a whole spectrum of cities.

Mr. Guy Barnett: rose—

Mr. Smith: I have already given way on a number of occasions.
The main source of the difficulty in which the public services and other employers in London now find themselves lies in the limited supply of labour in London in relation to the demands placed upon it. If in these circumstances there were no pay policy, rates would simply be bid up all round in a general scramble. Experience does not suggest that in these circumstances public employees would fare the best or even as well as others. Employers generally would not gain because the extra employees are not to be had. Employees generally would not gain at all because the inflationary consequences would soon swallow up their


bigger pay packets. That is something that cannot be allowed to happen.

Mr. Mellish: What are the Government going to do about it?

Mr. Smith: I will make clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will not give way to special cases in stage 3. There is no end to special cases. In the end everybody and everything becomes a special case.
Over one-fifth of all the jobs in London are in the government, medical and transport sectors, and most of them are providing essential services to London. On top of that there are public utilities, and there are endless groups of workers who can lay claim to special treatment. London services experienced considerable staffing problems in 1966 when the Labour Party instituted its brand of incomes policy squeeze and freeze. Is that the formula which the Opposition want to put into operation now? What an incomes policy that was! It involved special cases and bogus productivity deals galore and resulted in the earnings for all industries rising between 1966 and 1970 by 30·6 per cent. Earnings of London road and rail workers rose by 23 per cent. and 21 per cent. respectively, and the earnings of teachers rose by 21 per cent.
We intend that the present incomes policy should be fairer than the previous Government's policy.

Mr. Douglas Jay: rose—

Mr. Smith: No. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I shall cut him out of the debate if I give way any further.
If special treatment were accorded to the London services we might find Labour hon. Members showing the acute concern which they are demonstrating today whilst pressing the claims of those who would be regarded as being neglected. I do not need to lecture Labour hon. Members about the difficulties of running an incomes policy. They know all about it. They knew about it when they ran away in 1970. They failed to secure re-election.
The only practicable course is the one which the Government have taken. We believe that it is in the interests of the

public services and of everyone else to take such a course. We are now moving into a stage of the incomes policy which is flexible within limits, in which the maxima allow room for negotiation and within which account can be taken of such special factors as the working of unsocial hours.
In the meantime, the stage 3 code allows improvements to the London allowance. That is the point about which the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has been shouting. It does so on the NBPI formula, though the Government readily appreciate that the improvements are likely to be small. The special emphasis which we have placed on better compensation for the working of unsocial hours should help. I hope that it will help materially some of the services which are under the greatest strain.

Mr. Ronald Brown: rose—

Mr. Smith: Arrangements for the new efficiency schemes can be applied to employees in service industries as in manufacturing industries. The Pay Board has also been asked to consider London allowances. I can assure the House that the Pay Board has been asked to make as much speed as possible with the consideration of that matter.

Mr. Brown: Burnham has been allowed, the Government having considered the facts, to offer the staff side from £15 to £19. That is what I said when I referred to 36p a week. It is nonsense to suggest that they are likely to gain from that.

Mr. Smith: I am trying to explain that under stage 3 any changes, if we are to have a counter-inflation policy, must take place within a certain framework. If that is not so a sector becomes a special case and subsequently everybody becomes a special case. If that happens there is no gain in the long term, and improvements, as we have seen under the previous Government, are overtaken by events.
I believe that in the short term there can be assistance through stage 3 and through the greater flexibility which has been allowed. Further, we must consider the long-term considerations, as a Government and as a nation, particularly those which affect the availability


of manpower in the public services in the inner city areas and especially in London. Such considerations are the movements in population within and out of our major cities, the influence of housing and other policies, and the likely competing demands on manpower. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment will be dealing further with the link between housing policy and the problems of the London services when he replies.
Beyond the short term complex questions are involved. I can tell the House that officials have been asked to consider urgently how far it is possible to take a view on the available evidence and what action might follow. If Labour hon. Members do not recognise that we face a long-term problem they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Opposition hon. Members with all their speciousness cannot solve the problem at a stroke. If they were elected tomorrow they would find exactly the same situation as we now find.
The House generally has a debt of appreciation to the many loyal people who work in the London services in difficult and arduous conditions. The public should be grateful to them. This is not a matter only for Government. It is not in the short term just a matter of pay, although I recognise that that is important. It is a matter of conditions, of morale and of using people effectively and economically. While the Government are prepared to play their part within the limits of the present inflationary situation, the responsibility in the first place and over the onger term is with the public bodies which are concerned as employers and with the trade unions.
We must recognise that to run the economy at the high level which is being achieved by the present administration brings its own problems. They are the problems of success. They have not arisen, as Labour hon. Members pretend, because of the counter-inflation policy. The problems cannot be resolved by making exceptions to the counter-inflation policy.
There is a general shortage of labour in the service industries. Many outside public services are crying out for labour.

That applies not to London only but throughout the country. Pay is not the only consideration. We must also recognise the unsocial hours and the unacceptability of some jobs.
I grant that housing raises problems, but there are a number of other factors which, when combined, make it extremely difficult to get and retain people in the public services. I think that in the short term flexibility can help to remedy certain anomalies and improve pay structures. In the longer term we must improve the utilisation of manpower and resources. That can be done by better training, better productivity, better conditions in due course, and fringe benefits. There can be staggered hours and the speedier implementation of the Greater London development plan. The Government do not bear sole responsibility for these matters. They are also the responsibility of the GLC. It is about time that the GLC stopped playing politics and got on with the job by co-operating with the Government. We are willing to co-operate with it.
The motion deals in hysterical terms with the problems which I have mentioned. It shows that the Opposition have failed to grasp the wider nature of the problems and the fact that there is a joint responsibility for them. Consequently, I ask the House to reject the motion.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Cox: The Minister's remarks were as pathetic as the Prime Minister's comments whenever he talks about London. He has shown his appalling ignorance of London's problems.
Everyone knows that the housing problem is worsening month by month. That is not theory but fact. That is demonstrated by the number of people on council housing lists, the number of homeless families, the number of families which councils are having to put in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the number of evictions taking place by county court orders, the number of landlords seeking rent increases throughout London. Against that background the number of houses which are being built—and council houses in particular, which for many people are the only hope of being able to find somewhere decent to live at a rent which they can afford—is going down month by


month. It has done so ever since the Tories have been in power.
The only hope for Londoners rests with the Minister. Throughout London, and especially in inner London, the scarcity of available land means that London boroughs often come up against the spiv developers who are able to pay far more than the boroughs are allowed to pay by the Government for it. That is land which the London boroughs would buy and build on. Such a situation exists in Wandsworth.
The only hope for the London boroughs is the willingness of outer London boroughs to offer help. We know only too well, however, that they are not interested in doing so. Why not? It is my belief that they do not want the kind of tenants who would go to their areas to live—namely, council tenants.
If any local authority in inner London were to say to one of the outer boroughs "How about coming to some agreement with us about luxury flats or town house developments?" it would be welcomed with open arms. But, because it is the people of London whom we want to see housed on the land available in outer London, they put up every conceivable excuse why this should not be done. It is about time that the Minister started to force these authorities into action and into discussions so that land can be made available for building houses for the people in London who live in the most deplorable conditions.
I turn to the question of the 100,000 empty properties in London. It is time that we stopped talking—as the Minister does when he answers questions on environmental matters—about seeking the co-operation of these landlords. There is no co-operation because in many cases the landlords do not want to bring any of their properties into use. I am sure that many hon. Members have people who come to see them week after week at their surgeries who are living in the most deplorable accommodation. Certainly I do.
How do we justify to those people the fact that down the road there are two or three empty properties which have remained empty not for weeks or months but in some cases for years at a time? When will the Minister set up a department within the Housing Department which will give speedy approval to those

local authorities which want to put compulsory purchase orders on vacant properties? It is a national disgrace that there are thousands of people in London trying to bring up their families in the most deplorable conditions while there are thousands of empty houses. As Members of Parliament we should do everything we can to end this appalling suffering.
The people most at risk are those in furnished tenancies. I have had cases, as no doubt other hon. Members have, of people who have lived in supposedly furnished accommodation in some cases for as long as 15 years. There have been no complaints about them. They have been good tenants who have paid their rent regularly. Then the property is sold, invariably to some "spiv" developer, the likes of whom we in inner London know well.

Mr. Spearing: Gangsters.

Mr. Cox: Yes, they are. Certainly anyone else who broke the law as they do would find themselves inside Wandsworth Prison in my constituency. By God, I wish there were many of them in there, because they are more criminal in their activities towards society than many who are at present serving sentences.
These tenants find that the property has been sold. Often they have forgotten that they were furnished tenants. They are given notice to quit. They are on no council housing list. What is greatly overdue is the introduction of legislation which would ensure that a person who has lived in accommodation for a certain period of time is given security.
What is being done is creating social problems for local authorities. In my constituency estate agents are circulating areas with leaflets saying "We will buy property empty, part-possession or fully let for cash". Why are they buying properties fully let for cash—we know that hundreds of thousands of people cannot even raise a mortgage, let alone buy property for cash—unless at the back of their mind there is the hope that they will get the tenants out and then be able to sell the property?

Mr. Spearing: Private enterprise.

Mr. Cox: Yes, criminal private enterprise. This is what we should be tackling. When will the courts be made


fully aware of their powers for dealing with harassment, lack of rent book, lack of housing repairs? It is no good Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box and saying "We have the laws" when we know that the courts are not imposing proper penalties. Pathetic fines are imposed upon some of the individuals who are responsible. I ask any hon. Member to go into an area where some of these landlords have been taken to court and had pathetic fines imposed on them.
The people ask, "What is the good of complaining? We shall not get anywhere". At the same time, a local authority which tries to do something loses heart. It is not prepared to spend the time, effort and cash in taking cases to court when pathetic fines such as those cited a week or two ago in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) are imposed. When shall we take action and make the courts impose the kind of fines which could be imposed and which would stop much of the harassment now taking place in London? There are other penalties which could be imposed, too.
Two things need to be done. First, action is needed by the Government on the points that I have been making. Next, massive financial help should be given to city areas, and not only London. The Minister must not get up and say that the Government do not have the money. In recent weeks we have discussed such projects as the Channel Tunnel and Maplin. Does the Minister believe that it is any good telling the people living in such appalling conditions that we cannot afford the money when they read in the Press, or see on television that this House is approving the expenditure of millions of pounds on such projects? When are we to give the same kind of priority to the needs of London as we seem to be giving to these other schemes which I do not believe will benefit the country, let alone London?

4.37 p.m.

Mr. William Shelton: All London Members share the concern which has been expressed in this debate. We all know that in our constituencies there is a general shortage in the service industries which is causing great difficulty to many of our constituents.
Like many other Members, I have received a deputation from NALGO. I remind the House that in April the ban upon local government officers applying for posts outside the London area comes to an end. As a result, in my view, the local government service in London will deteriorate even more swiftly than it is deteriorating now. I hope that this is taken on board by Ministers. I ask for a close look at some of the varying situations.
I do not think that "crisis" is the right word to use here. Following the point made by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) I would like to draw the attention of the House to the position regarding teachers in the Inner London Education Authority area. I understand that we shall be lobbied by the teachers some time early in December. The figures that I have on the teaching staff situation in inner London give the lie to any suggestion of a crisis. If hon. Members can correct me or give me other figures I shall be happy to listen. My understanding of the situation is this.
The ILEA claims to be short of 500 or so full-time and part-time teachers. If we look at the pupil-teacher ratio in inner London and compare it with the national average we see an odd situation. In January 1973 the London primary average was one teacher to 22 pupils. The national average was one teacher to 25 pupils. In secondary schools it was one teacher to 14·6 pupils in London and nationally one teacher to 17 pupils. We have 8,000 teachers in London teaching 115,000 pupils. If we applied the national average to this figure we would need only 6,500 teachers, making a surplus, on the national figures, of 1,200 teachers rather than a shortage of 500. I am not criticising the ILEA for aspiring to an excellent teacher-pupil ratio. What I am saying is that if these figures are correct we are not in a crisis situation.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has asked whether any hon. Member can correct him. Is he not aware that these figures include many teachers not in the schools at all, but providing support services, who happen to be qualified teachers? Is he not also aware that the figures include many people who are only temporarily in the staff room and in some cases are of very marginal use? Is he not


further aware that most of the staffing timetables were drawn up six to eight months ago, when it was thought that teachers were available, but that, because of a miscalculation by the Department of Education and Science, they are not now available after all?

Mr. Shelton: But the same is true of the national average and, therefore, the comparison is fair for both cases. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to draw my attention to the raising of the school leaving age. That makes an increase of 7 per cent. in the number of pupils in the London area. But, even applying the national average, after the increase of 7 per cent. there is about a break-even situation in the staff-pupil ratio in London—perhaps a shortage of some 40 or 50 teachers. So again I do not think that there is any crisis here.
The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) mentioned the half-time, half-clay problem. The reason is clear. Earlier this year, before the summer, schools were given the option of choosing either more staff or more equipment. Many schools chose to have more staff on their books and prepared their timetables accordingly. Unfortunately, throughout the summer and by the time autumn came that staffing was not available.
In the schools with which I am connected my experience is that there has been no problem in overcoming this difficulty and that in re-timetabling we have had the full-hearted co-operation of the staff. I understand that that is not so in other schools, but in my constituency we do not have the problem.
There is a difficulty about high turnover, certainly among senior staff, and this has been a problem for some time. I suggest that it is due to three factors. The first is the lack of a career structure—in other words, the more senior teachers should be paid considerably more than they are. The second factor is lack of discipline. The third factor is the size and difficulty of some of our inner London schools.
Of course we have a problem at the moment in London, but anyone who believes that it can be cured by breaching phase 3 is being naïve. History has shown over the last five or 10 years that whenever we have a free-for-all in wage

bargaining, whenever there is a bidding-up in order to draw staff who are employed in other jobs, it is always the lowest-paid who suffer most. Again and again this has happened.
If phase 3 were breached for London, there is no doubt that it would be breached as well in many other parts of the country in many other industries in many other ways, so that the people who would suffer most would be those we are trying to help—the people working in low-paid industries in London—and the final situation within a year or two would be far worse than it is. The best protection we have for people in the lower-paid service industries is precisely a successful prices and incomes phase 3 which has provision for the lower-paid workers.

Mr. Ronald Brown: How does the hon. Gentleman apply that idea to my constituency? There, children are out of school on two half-days a week. The authority cannot get the teachers. In any case, the majority are first appointments. They have no homes locally because they cannot buy homes or rent them. These teachers are finally going to get exasperated and leave London's service. How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that his argument will apply to that situation?

Mr. Shelton: The hon. Gentleman has asked a question which I am about to try to answer. There are three ways in which something could be done. Two of them would take a little while and the third would be fairly rapid. The first is the better use of the work force. Women's place in the situation has been mentioned, and I am delighted that the trade unions have agreed that women, if they wish, can drive buses—although I would not like to be in front of one. The more we can use women in part-time work, if they wish to do so the better.
Secondly, I am convinced that the moment is coming in our full employment situation when we must look again at the wage-stop provision applying to retirement pensioners. The situation in which many pensioners who would like to do a useful part-time job cannot do so because of the tax situation should be changed. I would like this point to be taken on board by the Government.
Thirdly, there is the question of housing, which is of vital importance. I understand that over the last seven years nearly half the houses built by the GLC under both Tory and Labour control have been built in the expanding towns—too far away for people to commute, and in any case the policy is that they should live and work in those towns. Surely it is more sensible to build as many houses as we can in London rather than take out of London precisely the people we need to man the services of London. I ask the GLC to build more houses in London, if it can, and fewer houses outside it.

Mr. Harry Lamborn: How would the hon. Gentleman propose to deal with the overspill from places like Southwark if the GLC were to stop the rippling-out process from the centre, which is what has been happening and which still needs to happen if we are to conquer the slum problem in inner London? That conquest can be achieved only by the new and expanding town policy which has been so successful in making progress with slum clearance.

Mr. Shelton: I would not suggest that it should be stopped. I am suggesting that the balance should be changed. Nearly half the houses of the major planning authority of London are built outside London and the balance surely must be varied. If the GLC and the boroughs claim that there is a crisis, they must be prepared to use their powers to make housing available to some of the staff in the more critical areas. As we have seen, the ILEA is moving towards this for teachers, and I welcome it.
Again, I would like to see owner-occupiers exempted from the Rent Act 1965. I believe that this would make available many more small furnished rooms and flats in houses where the owners live. Many of these people are afraid to put such accommodation on the market because of the legal ramifications which would come into force as soon as they did so.
Most important of all is the London allowance. The present formula was established by the Prices and Incomes Board in 1967. It is now out-dated and unrealistic and must be brought up to date. I welcome the initiative of the

Government in referring it to the Pay Board for review and bringing up to date. In that review I would like to see included two additional aspects, the social costs of working in London—we all know what they mean—and one that was not included in the 1967 formula, that of attracting staff to work in London, which means not just holding them but being able to attract them in a shortage situation. I hope that this will be included in the terms of reference under review, although I fear that it will not be.
I understand that the Pay Board does not plan to report until June. That is much too late. If it is quite impossible for it to report before then, it must produce an interim report, and we must have that by January or February. I view the situation in local government in April as potentially very difficult, and I hope very much that the board's report can be brought forward to the beginning of next year.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I want to take up the first point made by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton) about staff shortages in local authorities in the London area. My own borough of Waltham Forest is currently between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. under-staffed in valuers, engineers, building surveyors, weights and measures inspectors, health visitors, social workers and clinic nurses. It is 30 per cent. under-staffed in dental staff, 43 per cent. under-staffed in chiropodists, and 55 per cent. under-staffed in public health inspectors. The Minister spoke about productivity improvements. Is not that a tremendous improvement in productivity, with fewer and fewer staff having to keep essential services going? What more can flesh and blood do?
These reduced services are well below what councils in London want to provide. What is more, they are well below what people living in London have a right to expect, especially in view of the high rate burden in London. The House may not be aware that in terms of the expenditure of local authorities, net of grant, the current rate burden in London per head this year is £85·96. The Minister said that other boroughs, including Birmingham and Manchester, had comparable problems. It is interesting to note that the equivalent figure for


county boroughs outside London is £49·07 and for county districts £38·02, So much for these trite and unreal comparisons between the problem in London and that in other areas of the country, even places like Birmingham and Manchester.
Staff shortages are endemic. In public transport in London we all know the inconvenience to the public caused by delays in services, over-crowding and unreliability. Basically it is a problem of wages. A couple of days ago I received a letter from a busman in my local garage in Walthamstow giving some figures and enclosing two pay slips showing a busman's earnings and not statistics supplied by the Department of Employment showing average earnings of £40 a week. The net take-home pay of an unskilled worker is £22, that of a semi-skilled worker is £25·50, and that of a skilled worker such as a fitter or a bodymaker is £30 for a 40-hour week.
Low pay is not the only problem in London, of course, and certainly it is not the only reason for our declining public services. My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) referred to housing. What do the Government intend to do about improving council building in London, where local councils are hindered by land shortages? It is impossible for them to build without land. They are also hindered by the shortage of building tradesmen, which will be made even worse if and when the Maplin project ever gets off the ground.

Mr. Jessel: Why is the Greater London Council delaying in the proposal to build a great deal of housing on the former London Docks land?

Mr. Deakins: It is not, and I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) will be prepared to support any proposal of the Greater London Council to build council homes in constituencies like his own.
Local councils are also hindered by the inadequate housing cost yardsticks—a subtle means whereby the Government make sure that council building in urban areas is restricted.
Privately rented accommodation is drying up, because there is more profit in selling than in renting. The largest accommodation bureau for the supply of rented

accommodation in London, the London Accommodation Bureau, has closed recently. That is a sign of the times.
Then there is home ownership. What about the cost of housing? It is all very well to say that housing costs are only marginally more than outside London. The chief executive of my own local authority tells me:
From the experience of my personnel officers new recruits from outside the London area find the cost of buying houses near to Waltham Forest to be between £5,000 and £10,000 greater than the value of the houses they are selling.
Any local government officer coming to London has to find a mortgage, and that means annual repayments, net of tax relief, of between £400 and £800 a year. Does not that put in perspective the present scale of weighting allowances of between £100 and £150 a year? How can local authorities hope to attract staff in this situation?
What needs to be done? First, we must have special treatment for London's public services. The London weighting allowances must have a substantial and immediate increase. I agree with the hon. Member for Clapham that we cannot afford to wait until next April. What is more, those allowances should be extended to all categories of public servants in London.
On the housing situation generally, I hope that the Minister will have some good news for us. How are we to increase council building? This is not just a matter for the GLC, as the Secretary of State for Employment told a recent deputation from the GLC, adding that it was up to the GLC to build more homes. It is up to the Government to pave the way for the GLC to do so.
What are the Government proposing to do? It appears so far—and I suspect that at the end of the debate we shall find that this is the real story—that the Government are prepared to do precisely nothing about housing and that on pay their action will be too little and too late. Their complacent attitude mocks not only the plight of the 7,000 people on the waiting list in Waltham Forest and the many others in Hackney and other London boroughs, but the plight of people living in London in these conditions.
Ministers do not really care about the problems of London. They do not use public transport. They do not send their children to State schools. They do not have to live in unsatisfactory rented accommodation.
We shall not get anywhere with this Government. That is a reason for supporting the Opposition motion. It is also a reason for putting into power a Government who will really act to solve the problems of Greater London.

4.56 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: The Opposition motion is a typical Labour motion. It blames the Government for not doing someone else's job. If the Government are responsible for services in London, obviously they are responsible for services in every other big city. That is quite absurd. The Government can help, of course, but it is the Greater London Council which is responsible for services in the city.
In the motion we find words such as "breakdown" and "grave hardship". I expect that hon. Members on both sides of the House received a copy of the statement on behalf of the Greater London Council. If that is not a political document, one has grave doubts about the ability of the people in charge of the Greater London Council. It is difficult to believe that a document of this kind really represents their views.
It appears from the document that London is run down and decrepit, that there are acute job shortages and terrible traffic conditions, and that there is grave risk of epidemics. It is just as well that certain Members of the Opposition are not on the Tourist Board. If they were, we should not get 10 million people coming annually to London to savour the delights that they find there.
In fact, of course, London is booming. It is a healthy place in which to live. Certainly people in the rest of the country do not believe that unemployment is a severe problem in London. For years they have been complaining about the centralisation in London of employment of all kinds. Traffic moves faster than before the war. It is much easier to get in and out of London today than it was before the war. London's public transport is the best and most efficient in the world. In

my experience, it is better in London than in any other capital city. Perhaps Opposition Members would care to comment on that.
I am delighted to see someone with so famous a name as the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) on the Opposition Front Bench, and I hope he will stay there. If I did not know his ebullient nature I would have thought that he was probably the gloomiest man in the Opposition, but I know he is not. He referred to the shortage of police. We learnt recently that there are now more police in the Metropolitan force than there were in 1970, though, admittedly, the trend is downwards, which is worrying.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to teachers, but the teacher/pupil ratio in the inner London education area is better than the national average. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said recently, the shortage is in various specialised categories.

Mr. Spearing: I am a governor of a school in East London which has over a thousand pupils but has only two specialised mathematics teachers, one of whom is leaving shortly. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that the phrase he used sounds good but that in cases such as the one I have quoted, education in London is near to breakdown, as my hon. Friends have said?

Captain Elliot: The shortage of specialised teachers is serious. I do not belittle the problem for a moment, but the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury did not say that. He gave the impression that the Inner London Education Authority was gravely short of teachers. He should have given the true picture, as I am giving it.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I gave accurate figures. I spoke of a short-fall of 250 full-time staff and 275 part-time staff.

Captain Elliot: I know those figures, too; I do not deny them. But I will not dwell on the point any longer.
In the screed from the GLC there is a reference to a decline in privately rented accommodation. There is a decline, but it lies ill in the months of Socialists to remark on it. They are largely responsible for the shortage, for the blackguarding of


good landlords who have done a good job for a small return but have now ceased to do it because they would not stand the political attacks from the Opposition.
The problems of staffing the London services are a serious matter, but they have not arisen with the advent of phases 1, 2 or 3, as is implied by the GLC. They are long-standing problems. Every great city needs to be properly staffed, and in a mighty city like London the problems are that much more difficult.
As my hon. Friend has mentioned, the staff in London services must have some priority in certain aspects. I shall illustrate this point. Many businessmen, shopkeepers and people employed in, or running, service industries may not wish to move from London, but they could. I do not say they should, but they could. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where would they move?"] A London road sweeper could sweep the roads in Glasgow, but this would mean that London roads would be unswept unless the road sweeper was replaced.
Of course, pay and salaries are important. I mention salaries because the problem of the London services is not confined to manual workers. It also includes white collar workers. Experience has shown that pay increases, although welcome, do not affect the relative position of various groups of London services workers in the pay league. These workers are rapidly overtaken in the pay league and there is leap-frogging. Everyone preserves the differentials, and in the end no one is better off than he was previously—and inflation has been given a further twist. At the same time, the GLC should examine much more carefully than it seems to have done the flexibilities allowed in the Government's phase 3, of which we have seen some examples. The GLC does not seem to have explored all the possibilities.
The main trouble is housing—a house near the job at the right price. That affects practically every category of worker, up to those with quite high incomes. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Tope) was on a radio programme with me, and we were contacted by a postman who said that his gross earnings were £36 a week, his take-home pay was naturally smaller, and he had to pay £4·50 to travel to his work.
That is a big sum out of his take-home pay. That example could be extended almost ad infinitum to cover many workers in the London services.
Why do not the GLC and the boroughs get on with providing living accommodation? [An HON. MEMBER: "Where from?"] They have the power. They have houses at their disposal, and they can, and should, give priority to some categories of worker. Not everybody can be provided with a house, but a certain number could be provided, perhaps on the basis of seniority, family commitments and so on. We are told that one of the problems is to retain fairly senior staff. A house after a certain period would be a strong inducement to staff to stay on.
There are other possibilities. I do not know whether consideration has been given to hostels for young unmarrieds. Does the GLC keep a landladies' list? When a school is rebuilt, is consideration given to whether it is possible to provide a certain amount of living accommodation in the precincts or nearby?
The document talks about the turnover of teachers, and I can well understand the difficulties. It refers to some of the schools losing a third of their staffs, which is obviously a serious problem. It gives what it believes to be the reason at page 7, where talking about the London allowance, it says:
It is difficult to overstress the importance and urgency of a major change of policy and practice on this issue. Public services in London will be in danger of collapse unless rapid and effective action can be taken specifically under this heading to improve the manpower situation.
I wonder whether that is so. It seems to me rather a superficial answer to the problem.
I read recently that because of indiscipline and violence in some schools some teachers have refused to go to classes. I have read reports of violence before, and perhaps there is something in them. In those circumstances, what teacher will remain, whatever his pay? He will, naturally, leave, and that must account for some of the turnover. What is the education authority doing about that?
I emphasise that immediate action is necessary in two areas. First, instead of wasting time marching over Westminster Bridge, the GLC should examine the


flexible arrangements allowed under phase 3 to see what can be done about pay and allowances. Secondly, it should get busy at once on a careful study of the provision of priority houses near the place of work, particularly for more senior staff.
Thirdly, it should stop coming to the Government to ask for its nose to be blown and its nappies to be put on, and should get on with the job.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Graham Tope: I am pleased to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) because, as events in the past 12 months have shown, his views are not shared by all those in the borough of Sutton.
I should like to take the hon. and gallant Gentleman up on two points. I welcome what he said about the need for much greater housing priority. I only hope that he has greater success with his colleagues on Sutton council than I have had in urging that need upon them.
Secondly, I refer to the teacher-pupil ratio. Here I must declare an interest, because my wife is a teacher in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's constituency, for better or worse. Whatever the statistics, the problem lies not in recruiting teachers straight from college but in retaining them when they reach the age at which they want to get married, buy a house, set up a home and start a family. They find that they cannot afford to do so in London. The teacher problem in London is mainly that of teachers between, say, the ages of 25 and 40 who are at the peak of their energy and have some experience. Statistics about the teacher-pupil ratio are meaningless in that respect.
The debate is really about what sort of London we want to live in—indeed, about whether we want to continue living in London. The stresses and strains of life in London are so great, with the financial rewards non-existent, that more and more people are saying that they no longer want to live in London, and are moving out, with a consequent decline in the public services.
I think that it is generally accepted in the House, despite what the Minister

said, that manpower shortages in London are reaching a crisis point. There is no doubt about that. We can swap figures, but anyone who travels on London Transport, for example, knows that it is stretching to breaking point. The Evening News recently published an excellent series entitled "Let London Live", which highlighted the problem.
Most of us now believe that the answer to urban transportation problems lies with public transport, that if we are to remain mobile in an urban centre we must do so with public transport. I believe passionately in its expansion. There is a great deal of talk about bus lanes and other measures to improve public transport, but if we do not have the people to drive the buses all our plans for expansion of public transport go by the board.
That is just the problem of transport. We have already listed the problems of staff shortages in local authorities, the health service and so on.
I do not want hon. Members to think that the problems exist only in inner London. They are acute there, but there are problems in outer London as well. Time is short, and I promised to be brief, but I should like to give one example to illustrate the kind of problem from which we suffer in outer London. Sutton's head postmaster told me yesterday that he has 14 vacancies out of a total complement of 346. That is a shortfall of 11·2 per cent.
That is bad enough. But the retention problem is even greater. This year Sutton post office has recruited 78 new postmen but it has lost 44. That is a retention rate of about 45 per cent., which is not good enough. I continually receive complaints about the poor postal service, and I am sure that many other hon. Members receive such complaints. Yet we have a postal service at all only because the postmen are working ridiculous hours of overtime, doing double shifts to get the mail out.
That is just one example. There are many others. Even a traditional part of British suburban life, the daily milk delivery, has gone by the board in Sutton I have a milk delivery at home every other day. I cannot have milk delivered every day because of staff shortages.
Hon. Members have touched on the reasons for these problems, and they are twofold.

Captain W. Elliot: I intervene only because of my earlier remarks in praise of London. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that only in England is milk delivered? That service does not obtain anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Tope: I am not sure that that is strictly accurate. Nevertheless, our standards or way of life should not decline because in other parts of the world people have a different way of life.
Hon. Members have already referred to the reasons for these problems, and they are twofold: pay and housing. The two are obviously clearly interrelated.
Housing costs in London have soared during the last five years. In 1967 the price of a house in London was on average about £1,000 more than in other parts of the country. Now the difference is £4,000. The hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Deakins) quoted figures in his constituency which showed an even greater difference. I am referring to average figures.
I turn now to rents. Most of the people about whom we are talking have no hope of ever buying a house in London, so rented accommodation is important. Privately rented accommodation in London is fast disappearing. Rents for the accommodation that is left are soaring possibly faster than house prices. The Notting Hill Housing Trust shows that the average rent in North Kensington in 1967 was £4·50 a week. In 1972 it was £14·50 a week. These are the rises in cost about which we are talking, and no one can pretend that pay increases in the public services have anywhere near kept pace with those increases.
Many people in the public services have been prepared, perhaps with varying degrees of grace, to accept some restrictions on their pay increases this year to allow the Government to try to solve our inflation problems. But now we have come to stage 3, and that offers them no hope at all of any effective solution to their pay and housing problems. Many people are saying that there is no end in sight to this problem and are moving out.
We have talked about police manpower. No one would dispute that many policemen are leaving the Metropolitan Police Force. But they are not leaving the police service; they are moving to police forces in other parts of the country where they can get a better standard of living for much the same pay.
The motion censures the Government for allowing the deterioration of services in London. I think that is right. Services in London have deteriorated markedly in the last few months. For that reason, the Liberal Party will support the motion. But, in all honesty, it would be less than fair—

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of matters. I agree about the shortages of milkmen, postmen, and others. But is he saying that the categories that he has quoted should be regarded as special cases? Where would he stop regarding special cases for exemptions from stage 3?

Mr. Tope: That is not what I said. If we want London to be a living city, a capital city worth living in, a city to be preserved and of which to be proud, which will attract and encourage the tourists whom a previous speaker admired, we must start tackling the problem now. In a brief speech there is no point in listing the various categories.
My next point might please hon. Members opposite. I was going on to say that, whilst we are right to censure the Government, it would be less than fair not to point out that, although the problem has got worse in recent months, it has been building up for 20 years or more. During most of those 20 years the government of London has been in Labour hands, many London boroughs have been Labour-controlled, and, indeed, for part of those 20 years we had a Labour Government.
Frankly, I do not think that Londoners are interested in hearing one party blaming the other. All parties are to blame for this problem, except perhaps my own—and that through no fault of ours. The GLC should stop blaming the Government, the Government should stop blaming the GLC, the Prime Minister should stop being rude about the Leader of the GLC, and so on. We


ought to recognise that we have a serious problem in London and that we need to get on and tackle it.
It is essential to have a rational assessment of the extra costs of living and working in London, and this should be reflected in a rational level of London allowances. I use the word "allowances" deliberately. The last report on London weighting was in 1967. I echo the plea made by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton): please let the Pay Board report much earlier than next June on what we are all agreed is an urgent problem. I hope that its report will take into account not only the extra travel and housing costs but the social and environmental costs of living in London. These are very much part of the problem. We must also recognise and accept that a London allowance is a vital element in recruitment.
Time does not permit a lengthy speech on what we should do about housing. We need a crash building programme. Certainly we need to allow local authorities to make much better use of the derelict and disused land within their areas, which in many instances they cannot afford to do.
I should like to highlight one instance relating to empty properties. The London Boroughs Association's survey showed that if all the empty properties in London indexed by local authorities were put to use, London's housing lists would be reduced by a third. That would not solve the problem, but it would go a long way towards solving it and would show a much greater declaration of intent to get to grips with London's serious housing problem.
Housing accommodation is the main reason for people on low and middle incomes being driven away from London. They simply cannot afford to live here. It is not that they do not want to live here but that they cannot afford to do so.
It is time to stop blaming each other for what has happened and to get on with the job of making London a city fit to live in. The message from this debate should be: pay up before we seize up.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
First, I should like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown), who, early in the debate, said that crime in London was increasing. I do not know whether he is aware that this year, for the first time since the war, the amount of serious crime in the Metropolitan Police area has declined. True, it has not declined by very much, but it is the first time that this has happened. Let us hope that this is the beginning of a trend. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will wish to rise to the level of a great event and welcome it as warmly as it should be welcomed.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I said that crime had increased. The hon. Gentleman is talking of one element, about which we all rejoice; namely, that the serious part has reduced. However, crime as a whole has increased.

Mr. Jessel: It may be that the number of parking offences, or whatever, has gone up. But serious crime—violence, burglaries, assaults and matters of that kind that worry people most—has begun to decline. This is very important and should be greeted enthusiastically by Her Majesty's Opposition.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned transport, but in other speeches that subject has received relatively little attention. I intend to devote most of my speech to that problem.
My constituency is not far from London Airport. It feels the consequences of the boom in West London, which largely depends on the booming Heathrow Airport, most acutely. This is part of a national problem. If we want full employment and demand of the Government that they create full employment conditions, we should not be surprised if it transpires that there is a general shortage of labour in many sectors, including the vital public services. In a word, one cannot have one without the other.
For all that, I believe that the White Paper on phase 3, in recognising that public transport employees, such as bus and underground train drivers, have an element of unsocial hours in their work, was right, and that ought to be recognised. I hope, therefore, that when the time comes—which I believe will be next April, only four or five months away—bus and Tube train drivers will be treated as


generously as possible. They have a strong case, as has been said by the Chairman of London Transport, by their union, by the GLC, and by others.
At the same time, and in order to get the matter in perspective, one has to recognise that the Chairman of London Transport, the GLC, the unions, and so on, are bound to look at the problem from the point of view of their own internal set-up. They have no particular duty to consider the secondary effects of anything that they recommend, or the indirect effects of it upon the national economy, and, in particular, upon the counter-inflation policy. On the other hand, any Government must, and would, consider the secondary effects and attach importance to them. No Government could agree to destroy the basis of the counter-inflation policy by considering one industry purely on its own merits and without reference to the side effects of any policy that is adopted towards it.
I believe, too, that we should see the current shortage of bus and Tube drivers in its proper perspective, in that it is not exceptional. We are told by the GLC that there is a shortage of one driver in five, but in May 1970 there was an 18 per cent. shortage of drivers and a 15·7 per cent. shortage of conductors. Those figures are not very different from the present ones. That is no excuse for any complacency, but I suggest that we should not get the facts out of perspective.

Mr. Deakins: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that over the years there has been a decline in London Transport's services, and, therefore, in the establishment against which one measures shortages? There may have been a 10 per cent. shortage 10 years ago, but the problem is much more serious now when 10 per cent. represents a much more drastic part of the reduced service.

Mr. Jessel: I do not think that that is relevant, because the figures are given as percentages of the establishment, and presumably those figures represent the number of drivers needed in any given circumstances.
London Transport will have a deficit in 1974 of £55 million, assuming the present level of wages and fares. The Chairman of London Transport says that he wants 4,000 extra staff. To achieve

that increase, he says that he needs to raise salaries of the whole staff, including those extra 4,000, by a total of £45 million. That would mean a deficit of £100 million, which in turn would mean that the cost of each extra man would be £11,000. A deficit of £100 million shared among the 2 million households in Greater London amounts to £50 per year. As London Transport has said that it does not intend to increase fares—or the GLC will not allow it to increase them—a sum of £1 per household per week would inevitably fall upon the rates.
That figure might be acceptable in North London where there is a good Tube network, but it would not be acceptable in the southern half of London where there is nothing, or very little, in the way of Underground services, and it would be wrong for a community which has to rely for commuter services on British Railways to have to subsidise other parts of London where there is a better network of Underground railways.
There is also the question of the extent to which a wage increase for London bus and Underground drivers would be effective in attracting a sufficiently large number of extra staff to cope with the shortage. I suggest that if in conditions of full employment staff are attracted from industry into London Transport, that will worsen the shortage in industry, which will then be tempted to press for higher wages and so attract its staff back again. We are in the situation where full employment is bound to lead to some shortages, and I believe that wages, though important, are only part of the answer. We should, therefore, ask what else can be done.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many London boroughs the unemployment rate is running at 7–8 per cent.?

Mr. Jessel: I was not aware of that, and I shall be interested to see the figures. It is not running at anything like that figure in the borough of which my constituency comprises a part, and I shall be surprised to find that that figure applies anywhere in greater London. However, if the hon. Gentleman could provide figures to prove it, that would be a different matter.
What else can be done to improve London's transport, apart from increasing wages? First, now that the union is coming to accept the idea, we should go full steam ahead with the recruitment of women drivers. Secondly, the GLC should make some council houses available specifically to bus drivers within reach of those areas where there is a great shortage of staff. The GLC is in a unique position, because it is ultimately responsible for London Transport and it is at the same time a major housing authority.
I spent some years on the housing committee of the former Greater London Council and it seems to me in a sense almost anathema to suggest giving house tenancies on any basis other than housing need, but if London Transport is in such a crisis, as hon. Gentlemen opposite maintain it is, those crisis conditions should be regarded as exercising a compelling social need, and there is no reason why, in principle, the GLC should not offer tied tenancies to bus drivers.
Thirdly, on the productivity side, I think that the GLC should be congratulated on its progress with bus-only lanes, and there should be many more of them. Although petrol shortage is a disadvantage to the country in many ways, it may have one good effect, in that if it can reduce the amount of car traffic in London by 10 per cent. or thereabouts there may be an opportunity to improve the efficiency of bus services. I have heard the Chairman of London Transport speak forcefully of how the efficiency of London's bus services is undermined by the concentration of cars in London.
Fourthly, London Transport should sell books of tickets, as happens in Paris. That would save time, especially on one-man buses. Fifthly, London Transport should devote more attention to getting buses to leave bus stations at regular intervals and not bunch along the route. I am not satisfied with the reasons given by London Transport for not introducing that idea.
Sixthly, London Transport should give better information, both at Underground stations and on bus routes, about which buses are not running. Members of the public often have to wait unnecessarily, when they could go away and do their shopping, for example, because they are

not given sufficient information about which buses are not running. The same criticism applies to British Railways.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I fully support the motion. Some Conservative Members, including the Minister, make me think of a reported remark of a mayor of Lincoln about the housing shortage some years ago—that there was no such thing, that it was only a dirty rumour put about by thousands of people with nowhere to live. The Conservatives are saying that there is no London problem, that it is only a dirty rumour being put around by 7 million people who are sick and tired of this Government's complacency about all their problems.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. I said that there was a crisis, not a breakdown.

Mr. Stallard: Perhaps when the hon. Member's hon. Friend replies he will define the difference. There is very little difference in my constituency between crisis and breakdown.
I have spoken at some length recently about the housing problem, so I will deal with it now only briefly. People still do not realise the full extent of the problem in inner London. Conservative Members still do not accept that a two-bed roomed flat in an old converted house in my constituency costs between £12,500 and £17,000. They do not realise that no postman or bus driver in my constituency could buy such a flat.
They talk of the flats available for rent, but the few that have been left by the spivs and speculators are averaging £12 to £15 a week unfurnished to £25 furnished. Even the town clerk would have difficulty in paying that kind of rent—and no public service worker could.
Council rents are higher in London than in other parts of the country. I hope in a debate in the near future to be able to go into the argument about subsidies, rebates and allowances.
No one has touched on the problem of the homeless. I am not speaking about the man and wife and six children living in one room—although I would say that they are homeless—and there are thousands of such cases. I am speaking of the "dossers", of people whom we know are


homeless—a minimum of 15,000 in London, with a further 2,000 sleeping rough. Anyone who does not believe that can come with me tonight. I challenge the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends to come and see the problems of London's homeless, of squatters in my borough. Then the Minister might not speak with such complacency about London's problems.
I am much more afraid than the Minister apparently is about this breakdown, or what he calls "this crisis". Town halls, which are responsible for many of these services, are themselves beginning to break down. Staff are disappearing fast, and will disappear even faster after next April unless something is done quickly about the London weighting and London allowances. In my own area, according to a rough but nevertheless fairly accurate survey, there are 6,000 vacancies in the town hall. That is a large number of people, and it does not include those who cannot get to work because of the shocking transport services.
In that same town hall, more than 1,100 people have to travel more than 10 miles to work, more than 150 travel between 40 and 50 miles. Yet the Minister says that there is not a crisis, there is not even a breakdown, there is nothing for which we can blame the Government.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that someone in my town hall travels to and from Northampton every day?

Mr. Stallard: I can believe that. I can remember another Conservative spokesman saying that when they had built their motorways people would be able to travel from Lincoln and Leicester to work in Islington. That was their proud boast then. So I am not surprised at the way things are going.
I feel sorry for those who have to travel long distances. As one who travelled long distances to work for some years, I know the frustrations and expense. One of my earliest actions in this House was an attempt to get an income tax rebate or allowance for a worker's travelling expenses. I did not get much support, certainly from Conservative Members. One hon. Member opposite quoted a case in his constituency of someone paying £4·10 a week travelling expenses. Only a worker has to pay that kind of sum without

any allowance. Self-employed people would get a car or travel allowance.
Perhaps the Minister will reply, if not to me, at least to the Chairman of London Transport, who said recently:
If the Government refuses to budge on phase 3, bus and tube services might have to be cut to a lower level than most Londoners have ever known.
Would the Minister also consider something said by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry—not a notoriously Socialist body? That was:
Employees cannot give of their best if they arrive late after extended delays awaiting inadequate bus services or already overcrowded underground trains. Nor can business function efficiently if important letters cannot be sorted out or delivered on time because there are not enough staff to do the work. The Chamber recognises that the origins of these difficulties do not lie solely in the Government's Phase III proposals; nevertheless, the implications for the public service industries inherent in the Government's counter inflation policy ale contributing to creating a situation with grave consequences for the business life of London.
It went on:
The Chamber also believes that the lack of suitable housing for service workers, who need to be able to live fairly close to their work, is a major factor in the problem of the recruitment and retention of staff.
I would ask the Minister to reply to that statement from a body which is far more a supporter of his than I am.
I hope that the Minister will drop the complacency and ill-informed talk that we have heard week after week in this House over the last three years and give positive and constructive replies about what the Government intend to do about London's problems.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I would agree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) that if anyone were complacent about the problems of London and our great cities he would fully deserve the censure of the House. But neither the hon. Member nor any of his hon. Friends has proved that there is any complacency or any lack of awareness of the problem. There is another danger which is almost as bad, possibly worse—that of exaggerating, screaming about problems, making things sound worse and creating a feeling of hopelessness. That can be as damaging as complacency.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: "It is only a rumour."

Mr. Parkinson: No one is saying it is only a rumour and no one denies that there are problems. But I thought that the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) in particular, made a disgraceful speech. He did not name names but he alleged that the law was being broken that people were being harassed, that the courts and the police were not interested. If he has evidence of that sort of thing, it is his duty as a Member of Parliament to name names to the police, to say which laws he thinks are being broken—

Mr. Lewis: It has been done.

Mr. Parkinson: —and if the police do not act, he should come to the House and say so.
To parade across the stage a procession of the usual Labour demons—the Rachmans, the property spivs—not naming anyone, but just making people feel that a small group is causing all their problems and that rooting it out will solve them is grossly to mislead the people about whom the hon. Member obviously and passionately cares. It is not enough to care and to smear. The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central is doing his constituents a disservice in creating in them the feeling that there is a gigantic conspiracy in society against them. That is not true, and he knows it.

Mr. Thomas Cox: The hon. Gentleman should come and see it.

Mr. Parkinson: I have surgeries too, in my constituency, and I have problems. I do not pretend that they do not exist, but I do not try to exaggerate them for my own ends.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) made a speech to which I listened with great interest. He, too, left the tremendous feeling that he cares and is vitally concerned. I was reminded of a remark of the leader of the Liberal Party when the Labour Party was in power. The leader of the Liberal Party said that the trouble with the Labour Party was that it was all heart and no head. The speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and

Finsbury was a classic demonstration of that problem. We had such remarks as
Five hundred thousand jobs have been lost in London, and this is to be deplored.
The next thing we heard, immediately afterwards, was
There is a shortage of employees for the public services because there is too much choice of jobs.
How would 500,000 more jobs in London help the public services? It seemed that there was the heart of the Labour Party's problem about London. It does not want people to move out but complains about the problems their presence causes.
At the world cities conference in Tokyo, the then deputy-leader of the GLC made some remarks which I shall read. He said:
The city which is going to survive is one which decentralises. It is important to curb central growth and to limit commuting.
It is that type of thinking with which I entirely agree. We cannot talk of the problems of London only in the context of the Greater London area. We can do that only in the context of the South-East regional study. That is why that study was undertaken. It was backed by both major parties. In places such as Milton Keynes, Peterborough and Harlow, homes for 600,000, 700,000 or 800,000 people will be built in the next few years. I am astonished that we hear talk of the problems of London and the hopelessness of the housing situation without reference to homes for 800,000 people within 50 or 60 miles of London.
Governments of both major parties have put forward policies which they recognised as the only answer to London's problems. If we have a demand which we cannot satisfy, the only answer is to cream off that demand as much as possible. In doing so we are not offering people a second-rate existence. I was the chairman of the Conservative Party's Hemel Hempstead division. Hemel Hempstead is a superb new town, into which people moved from areas of London which were not good. They moved into good houses and work in modern factories in well-planned communities. I admire that town. The standard of living of its people has immensely improved. When hon. Members talk about people having to leave London, they should not pretend that people are being dispersed


to caravan sites in appalling out-of-the-way places. The new towns were intended to help with London's problems.
In listening to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Tope), I got the impression that the problems arose only when he found them and the Liberal Party found him. He did not seem to have heard of the new towns policy or the South-East regional study. He gave the impression that he had discovered the problem and asked why someone did not do something about it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, draw the attention of the House to the long-established custom that a Member of Parliament who has made his speech should at least have the courtesy to wait to hear the other side before walking out of the Chamber? In this debate, as with all major debates, hon. Members from the Liberal Party are absent. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson), but it ought to be put on record that the Liberal Party does not attend debates in the House of Commons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Parkinson: We are not surprised that members of the Liberal Party make speeches and leave early. We are surprised at their effrontery in coming into the Chamber at all to make the sort of speeches they make. I have seldom heard a more naïve and ingenuous speech than that of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam today. If his biggest problem is that his milkman is delivering milk only every other day, he is a very lucky young man. I am only sorry that I cannot say the same for Sutton and Cheam.
I was talking about the concept of the new towns and of getting people out of London wherever possible. If I may make a party point, I sometimes wonder whether the Labour Party is not torn two ways when thinking of the new towns. The late Lord Morrison made a remark, to the then hon. Member for Putney, which has become famous. He said
We are going to build you out.
He was as good as his word, and it was done.
I sometimes wonder whether one of the things which worry the Labour Party when talking about the new towns and taking jobs and inessential industry from London, thus lessening the pressure on London, is the fact that we would be taking people out of areas which are traditionally regarded as a Labour province, as a result of which overcrowding will be reduced and the standards of the area will rise. Voters may then not find the Labour Party quite so attractive and a Putney situation in reverse would come about. I can well understand that this causes the Labour Party some heart-searching. However, I ask Labour Members on this one occasion to put their party interests second and to put the good of the citizens first.
It will not be rooting out a few spiv landlords or killing some of those demons which the Labour Party loves to parade across the parliamentary stage that will solve London's problems. It will be decentralising and reducing the pressure on London. There is no other way. Anyone who makes this sound as though what is being offered to people is a second-class opportunity is doing those living in poor conditions in London a great disservice.
When we have debates about the problems of London in the future, I hope we shall not be quite so parochial. I hope that we shall talk about the Hardman Report, about regional policy and about preventing the South East becoming too great a draw in the country. That is where these problems could be solved. We may enjoy bashing each other on a party-political basis and ranting about landlords—

Mr. Thomas Cox: We do not enjoy it.

Mr. Parkinson: —but that has very little to do with solving the long-term problems of the people about whom we all care.
I want to make two or three additional comments. The first is about the outer London boroughs having the key to the inner London areas. I remind Labour Members of the remark made in Tokyo. We do not want to increase the pressure on London's commuter services. What is the point of moving people out and putting further strains on London's services? We do not adopt a convincing posture in the House if we are complaining about


the pressure on London's services and explaining how we intend to increase it.
The outer London boroughs have become another easy way out for the Labour Party. As a Member who has in his constituency no fewer than 10 different housing authorities, including three absentee GLC borough landlords, I know that it is not a very satisfactory answer for the tenants of inner London boroughs to be living in outer London boroughs. They have a second-class citizen status. They are of minor interest to the housing managers, who are a long way away. They are unrepresented on the council which is their landlord. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I have seen this at first hand in my constituency. It may be an answer, but it is a most unsatisfactory answer and it creates problems in addition to those which it may appear to be solving.
There is a growing feeling that one of the ways out is to attack the green belt. In Potters Bar, which forms part of my constituency, 260 acres out of the 1,380 acres of green belt are under attack at this moment. The green belt is as vital to London now as it was in the 1930s. Taking it will not help Londoners but will damage their interests. I hope that, when the appeals come before my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the 260 acres, he will take a cool look, will reject them and will thus reinforce the green belt policy. I do not see why my constituency, which contains one five-hundredth of London's green belt, should be expected to provide one-eighth of the green belt land which my right hon. and learned Friend intends to release. I hope that he will not develop the pattern which has become familiar of, for example, scheduling 200,000 acres of green belt somewhere in the direction of Royston and slipping in planning permission for 80 or 90 acres on the fringes of London. That is not satisfactory and my constituents are no longer prepared to put up with it.
I have tried to talk briefly about the long-term problems of London. I accept the genuineness of the feelings expressed by Labour Members. However, London's problems are big problems which will be solved only by long-term strategies. The South-East strategy, I believe, provides the opportunity for a better life for the vast

majority of the people in London and anybody who pretends that there is a short-term answer is cruelly raising the hopes of the people he claims to care most about.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I would say in response to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) that I and many of my hon. and right hon. Friends believe that London in future should aim for a population of about 7 million. We believe that the Government should announce that figure as part of its policy as soon as possible and that the future planning of London should be based upon it. We believe, too, that London could provide for 7 million people conditions which are decent, of good standard and comparable with anything in the country as long as the future planning of London is clear and precise and based upon that predetermined population.
However, the problems of London are, I believe, connected with the bad distribution of workers throughout the capital and with the imbalance between job and wage opportunities. The answer to the problem lies in the level of wages. I hope therefore that the Government will look at wages in London in advance of the report about London allowances, which we believe might be published about next April.
There is one point I must make about the allocation of houses and the relationship of that to the recruitment of workers for priority jobs. It has been argued, particularly by the Tories, that certain people should have priority in housing if they are willing to work in sections of the public services. The Labour Party and the TUC have always rejected this view by and large on the basis that we have never supported the idea of a tied cottage. Recent experience shows that the idea does not work anyway.
Whether or not an applicant remains in the job on the basis of which he claimed priority housing depends on how much he is paid. Londoners who move to new towns and development areas and are allocated housing there on the basis of their job soon leave that job if they are paid less than average wages. It is only workers who are paid above-average wages who stay in the job which gets them the house. This particularly


applies to railway and public service workers in some of the new towns and development areas.
The problems created by wages in London have developed over a number of years. Successive Governments have tried to pursue wage restraint policies and have thus created an artificial imbalance in the rates paid for different jobs. The differentials between pay for jobs in London have now been distorted out of all recognition with the result that bus, railway and various other service workers who were at the top of the wage table before the war have now been pushed into bottom position. The whole process of job change in London has been completely reversed and the days when London was in the happy position of having long queues of applicants for jobs in the public services have gone. That has happened because of the wage rates.
It was the experience of the Labour Government that the pursuit of a wage-restraint policy which so distorted wage arrangements began to starve the public services of their labour supply. That was partly why some of us ultimately won our battle against this sort of wages policy. It is why the Labour Party has now turned its face against wages restraint of this sort, against compulsory wages agreements determined by a Government criterion. So I hope the Government in phase 3 may learn something from the Labour Party's experience in government and start to think seriously about the whole business of paying the wage for the job and creating differentials which will keep on attracting labour into the essential services of the capital.
Other difficulties have arisen in recent times to put London at a disadvantage. Nowhere is it more noticeable than in the production industries. It is time we told the country honestly that London is no longer paved with gold. By coming to work in London workers from the rest of the country are likely to suffer a serious drop in living standards. It is estimated that to maintain the same living standard in London as is enjoyed elsewhere in the country a worker must earn about £400 more a year within a salary ceiling of £2,000. Unless a worker coming to London maintains that sort of differential over and above the salary

attainable elsewhere he will suffer a drop in his living standards.
Londoners work at least 15 per cent. harder than workers anywhere else in the country. They do so for a combination of reasons, connected not least with regional grants which subsidise industry everywhere except in London, high rating values in the city, and London costs generally—all of which are far higher than elsewhere in the country.
Giant companies which have manufacturing plants both inside and outside the GLC area and are, therefore, able to make precise comparisons have discovered that labour costs per unit of output are about 15 per cent. higher in London than elsewhere. The poor Londoner is now having to work at least 15 per cent. harder than anyone else in the country, and is getting nothing in terms of a higher living standard.
If we are to solve the problems from which the capital suffers, something must be done not to restore the differentials as they were 20 years ago but to ensure a realistic London allowance which takes into account stress and the greater amount of shift work. That will produce a figure very much higher than anything we have talked about. But if the Government are not willing to look seriously at this suggestion, we shall never solve London's problems. The Greater London Council alone cannot start to attract people into the right places, and that is why I believe that the motion is absolutely right in criticising central Government and not London's government for our present situation. The Government are responsible for making available the resources which will solve our problems, but the policy under phase 3, which means that the services cannot obtain adequate resources with which to pay proper wages, is worsening the differentials.
I do not believe that the trade union movement is so avaricious as to think that differentials should be pushed up unreasonably. I believe that the trade union movement would take a different view from that if the essential services were paying the sort of wages which would attract the necessary workers, so that the balance could be restored. I do not believe that wage agreements of that


kind would lead to a multiplicity of differentials such as exist at the moment, and I know of no trade union which would argue for the maintenance of differentials if people in public services were paid at a proper level.
Finally, there is the question of the price of the product. If people are all the time having to push against ceilings they will not be able to demand the maintenance of high differentials. So I hope the Government will not use those arguments as reasons for doing nothing about London's wages, and will not say that phase 3 is sufficiently flexible to offer wage agreements which are capable of solving Londons problems. Something much more realistic and quite dramatic must be done if the workers are to be provided.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I hope that the House will acquit me of discourtesy if I have to leave shortly after I have spoken, because I have to receive a deputation of constituents concerning the Abortion Act.

Mr. Lipton: I hope that the hon. Member is here for the vote at seven o'clock.

Mr. Tebbit: I shall receive a deputation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be here to vote.
If opposition is to be anything except some sort of belly-aching irrelevance, such as we sometimes hear from the second bench below the Gangway opposite, then it has to represent itself as an alternative government, but if it is to do that it has to offer credible alternative policies. So I shall be a little hard on the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) and judge what he said in that light. That is being a little hard on him, because I am conscious very much of agreeing with what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) said about the disposition of head and heart.
Flexibility seemed to be almost the key word—although he did not mention it—in the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury about solving London's problems of labour shortage. One way and another, hon. Members have this afternoon mentioned a few of the vacant jobs—6,500 London

transport workers, 5,000 police, 3,500 postmen, 2,700 British Rail workers, 500 teachers, 500 firemen and 2,450 gas and electricity workers. That list adds up to 21,150, and we have not yet come to the hospital services. It is curious if anyone believes that merely by "upping" wages 21,000-odd people will suddenly be produced to fill these jobs.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury talked about unemployment rates of 7 and 8 per cent. in London boroughs. He knows perfectly well that those 21,150 jobs are open, and if he walks down to the Tea Room and picks up a copy of the Evening Standard he will find very nearly 20,000 more jobs advertised. It is absolute nonsense to make the sort of speech which deplores the loss of 500,000 jobs, which deplores the fact that there are 20,000 and more jobs vacant, and which deplores the fact that there is also unemployment in London. Good God! The hon. Member cannot have it all ways. It does very little service to anyone to exaggerate and make these asinine suggestions.
The hon. Member said, quite rightly, that housing prices in London are much too high, and who would disagree with him on that? But he went on to say that one could not get a house anywhere in London for under £12,000. I picked up a copy of my own London paper and marked off just a few of the advertisements offering houses at less than £12,000. They are not palaces by any means, and most of them are the sort of houses in which I was born and brought up, but they are still available for less than £12,000.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The figure is probably £11,999.

Mr. Tebbit: I shall pass a copy of the paper to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) later on.
But it cannot be the right answer to jack up wages to entice 21,000 or 121,000 people from one job to another. We shall have hon. Members in this House grumbling about the fact that there are no waiters in the restaurants or no staff in the hotels. After all, we had a big hotel building boom which was perhaps set off by a certain amount of intervention in that market of hon. Gentlemen opposite. So we have to look at something more positive than that.
Of course, we should think about wages in London relative to the rest of the country. Wages in London should be higher than in the rest of the country, as we all recognise. We also recognise that London is an expensive place in which to live. But, in general, we all feel that it is a place worth living in, because it offers a great deal more than the rest of the country. If we are to solve the problem, it will be done not merely by raising wages. Certainly housing is part of the answer, and it is absurd that the GLC should be dissipating energy and money in buying existing houses, instead of getting on with building on dockland to which it has access right now, and dragging its feet for purely political reasons.
It is absurd that the trade unions should for years have tried to prevent women coming into jobs which they can well undertake—and the trade unions have contributed to this shortage. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hackney, Central has a long memory, he will remember that I spoke on behalf of women airline pilots. I believe that it is right that people should be judged not by virtue of their sex, colour or creed, but by their capabilities. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman's constituents do not take that view; then we might be rid of him.
We have to consider a problem, the broad lines of which were set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West. I refer to the new towns. I have the privilege of being both a London Member and also a Member for one of the new towns. I want to see that new town expand. I want to see people move from relatively bad housing conditions in London into the good conditions which we have in our new town. But we must also move jobs out of London. We must face the fact that it is no good just moving people and not their jobs. This may have some effect on the enormous flow of commuters and all the grumbling about the problems they cause.
We would do ourselves a good service if we stoped the great game of inflating council waiting lists by taking on to lists as homeless everyone who turns up at Euston or King's Cross from wherever they come. Of course local government is spending a great deal of money on

accommodation—local authorities are giving it away to all comers. If one opened a banana stall at King's Cross station and gave away bananas, there would be a very high bill at the end of the day for bananas. Therefore, local authorities which give away accommodation will also have a great bill.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Absurd.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Hackney, Central says "Absurd." Perhaps I should draw to his attention a complaint made about the number of squatters in Somers Town:
Few were really homeless and most were mixed-up kiddies acting out their middle-class guilt. Council tenants have suffered a barrage of intense noise, music, nudity, fires, vermin and more defiant behaviour than anyone could legally publish a book on.
This was described by the speaker concerned as "intense provocation" and also as a "violent street confrontation". That was not said by some diehard; it was said by a gentleman called Mr. Kazantzis, a Labour GLC member from Somers Town, who believed that those squatters were not homeless at all but were troublemakers. This is what will happen all the time if local authorities open up their housing lists to all comers.
If we are to solve London's problems we must in the long run pay higher wages in London—considerably higher than in the rest of the country. I accept this. But I wonder whether the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) is right to say that the trade unions would not take advantage of the situation by leapfrogging somewhere else. I wonder about this, as I am sure do most other people.
We must disperse jobs, homes and people. We must get more women workers into industry in London and into the jobs they could do. We must also get rid of many jobs. For example, there is no reason why there should be guards on Underground trains; there is no reason for there to be drivers at all on many trains.
We must also stop panicking ourselves and agree among ourselves that the real crisis in London at the moment is that the Labour Party in the GLC need a crisis and will make one. That would not be so bad, but, a crisis having been created, we know full well that those who governed London for 30 years and let


it slide into these problems have not a single constructive idea how to solve them. There are the problems with which they left us with, and there are the problems which they are trying to create for us now.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The speech made by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment was unsatisfactory and disturbing. Unlike many of his hon. Friends he did not deny that the situation in London was black, but he said that we had no right to complain to the Government because conditions were equally black in other parts of the country. This, as HANSARD will show, was the Minister's basic argument.
That argument is nonsensical. We have every right to blame the Government, even though there may be similar problems in other parts of the country. It is right that we should blame the Government because these problems are worse in London than they are in other parts of the country. To handle these problems we must discriminate in favour of London. This is something which the whole tenor of the Minister's speech attempted to deny, and that is a disturbing new feature of Government policy.
Even the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) agreed that there must be discrimination in favour of London workers in terms of wages. I wish that the Minister had shown some appreciation of the fact that London is a special case and recognised that we shall never get on top of any of these problems until the Government realise that London is a special case and that there must be positive discrimination in favour of London.
Many of my hon. Friends asked the Minister to come to the point of explaining what the Government intended to do about the situation. He replied that he was about to come to that part of his remarks. He then stopped his impromptu remarks and got down to reading his brief. The assurance he gave the House, as HANSARD will show, was that he had instructed officials to survey the facts to see whether anything could be done. This was the best part of the Minister's speech. It was so important that he could not trust himself to speak

impromptu. He had to give the right emphasis to every word. He could well have said straight out that the Government had decided to do nothing at all about the situation.
I promised to speak for only five minutes and I shall concentrate on one single subject. In my constituency the whole of the public services are threatened. There is a desperate shortage of teachers, local government officers, police and hospital workers. I have no time to discuss any of those matters in detail tonight, but I make one simple but important point. My constituents are plagued and exasperated by bus queues which, instead of shortening as time goes on, get longer and longer. I, as their representative, feel frustrated and ashamed that I have been able to do so little to help them on this question. It is ludicrous in our so-called affluent society—a society which, we are told, is going through a period of growth—that we should still condemn thousands of citizens at the end of a day's work to stand in a queue, in the cold, for a bus that may not come for half an hour, three-quarters of an hour or even more.
I used to complain to London Transport on these matters and from time to time I still complain on specific matters. Sometimes I complain to the Greater London Council. Now I am convinced that the person to blame is the Minister, together with the Conservative Government. I believe that the Government are to blame for the fact that we are short of 4,500 drivers and conductors. We have 1,250 fewer drivers and conductors today than we had a year ago. In my experience it is the Government who should be blamed for this basic disregard for the comfort of my constituents and for the fact that buses are off the road today for lack of maintenance workers.
The situation is getting worse. Our economy is in a state of growth which will approach 3½ per cent. next year—but the queues are getting longer.
The problem can be solved. Some suggestions have been made from both sides of the House which, if implemented, would make a great difference to the problem. For example, I believe that London allowances should be brought up to date. At present they are hopelessly unrealistic. We cannot wait until June.

Mr. Atkinson: They are to be reviewed in April.

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend says April. We need a review now.
The subject of wages was raised by a number of Conservative Members and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). I wish to direct the Minister's attention to the nine-point plan put out by London Transport. These are moderate and sensible suggestions. I know of none which is not practicable and which would not help my constituents. I ask the Government to pay careful attention to them.
I have taken my five minutes. I end by saying that I should like to see the entire Cabinet come to Woolwich when its day's work is over and to stand in Woolwich New Road to wait for the 192 bus. They would get cold—

Mr. Clinton Davis: They would all blow their tops.

Mr. Mayhew: —or wet as they would have to wait for such a long time. It would serve them right.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I take up immediately the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) was making. However, I will not be so rash as to invite the entire Cabinet. From time to time we invite the Prime Minister to visit our constituencies, and if he visited my constituency I should invite him to come by the No. 52 bus. After he had waited three-quarters of an hour—

Mr. Timothy Raison: The trouble with this sort of debate is that everybody thinks only about London. May I point out that in many of the villages in Buckinghamshire there are no buses. I am lucky enough to have one bus in my village. Furthermore, the cost of housing is at least as high as it is in London. What about our problems?

Mr. Pavitt: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The fact is that the Government have failed just as much in the rural areas as in the London area. The hon. Gentleman's point makes no difference to the fact that we want to concentrate in this debate upon the London area. As the hon. Gentleman represents not a London constituency but a rural

area he is not talking about a bus service for 7½ million people. That makes a difference to the argument.
I agree very much with the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East about the Minister's speech. It was the last word in irrelevancy and complacency. The only other time I have ever heard anything quite so far from reality was in 1931 when the Economist blamed the slump on sunspots.
My colleagues and I hoped for something solid at the end of the Minister's speech. We did not get it. I ask the Minister to look again at the letter which he received from the London borough of Brent on 14th November urging the Government to tackle the transport problems of its citizens. In addition to the points which have already been made, Sir Richard Way wrote to me on 20th August with his nine-point plan. Like other hon. Members I have a heavy correspondence with Sir Richard because regularly there are fresh matters to put to him. Sir Richard's nine-point plan struck me as offering a possibility of some immediate action and relief. I immediately put down Questions to the Minister. All the answers which I have received have been fobbing-off answers. I have received no reply which has indicated whether there is any intention to operate any of the matters contained in Sir Richard's letter.
It is no good the Government shifting the responsibility on to the GLC. The only way in which the GLC is able to operate is governed by Government action such as phase 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) referred to teachers. The problem does not rest with the Inner London Education Authority but with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who granted the rather derisory additional sum of £4 to an inadequate London Weighting. The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) has been able to find houses in his constituency costing £12,000. In my area there are no houses costing less than £14,000. How can any teacher, busman or others in similar capacities pay such prices? In my constituency a three-room flat in a high-rise block costs £14,500.
The hon. Member for Epping referred to a few squatters somewhere in London. Of course, there is such a minority in most places. I ask Conservative hon. Members


to come to my Saturday morning advisory bureau. They will there see families from broken homes who have no roof over their heads. They will see the heartbreak of young couples who are split up because they are living with mother and cannot get out. When I see people in such circumstances and when I hear the sort of comments that were made by the hon. Member for Epping, I wonder whether we are living in the same world.
With the present situation on the Bakerloo line there could, on health grounds, be a major tragedy this winter. If there were a recurrence of the arrival in Britain of a new influenza strain, such as the Hong Kong flu we had a few years ago, even with only 100 infected people using the Bakerloo line during the rush hour, we should have a major epidemic. It would cost the health service far more than the cost of transport improvements. Something must be done to improve travelling conditions on that line. People should not have to travel as sardines in a tin on the Bakerloo line at five o'clock in the London area.
I invite the Prime Minister, when he visits my constituency, to travel on the Bakerloo line. When he gets to Queens Park he will find that he will be lucky to get out of Queens Park within 40 minutes. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that he will accept my invitation, because if he did he might well try to remedy these problems.
I have some positive suggestions to put to the Minister. I do not expect him to answer me now but I hope he will write. We were able to keep open the Broad Street—Richmond overhead line a few years ago when it was threatened with closure. Is it not possible to experiment with new methods to achieve a syphoning of people from the Underground in North London and transferring them to this overhead line which covers the whole of North London? My suggestion is this. For six months we could have free travel on that line, and if we advertised it the practical result of overall cost benefit might well be achieved.
Last year 31 per cent. of the teachers left the London borough of Brent. As the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) said, who can blame them? They were not able to get housing in

London and they had no alternative but to go somewhere else if they wanted a normal family life. In my constituency there are 7,500 people on the waiting list, 294 statutory overcrowded families and at least 300 people for whom the local authority provides temporary accommodation or pays board and lodging in hotels because they have no roofs over their heads. It is impossible that at the top of the list of housing priority of families who have been on the waiting list for years we should then put the essential people whom we need in the town halls, the social service departments and the hospitals.
The housing situation for teachers and town hall staff is difficult, but one way in which the problem may be solved is if the Government will use their powers through the Housing Corporation to establish housing co-operatives and housing associations whereby the capital would be provided by the Government. There would then be a halfway stage between council housing and private housing. Very often in local government service the way to achieve promotion is for a person to move from one authority to another. Therefore, there is a need for all authorities to be in a position to provide housing for such people and although the house would not be tied to one incumbent, a pool would always be available. The local authorities must, of course, give housing priority to those in greatest housing need, but they must make some provision for the people who maintain the essential services. We need to provide for those who serve in local government. This would mean a massive increase in Government finance.
Incidentally, had I more time I should have liked to have spoken about the impact of Government policy upon the National Health Service in London. I urge the House to read the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury, who covered all the ancillary services in a most formidable way. I do not want to repeat those matters.
There has emerged during the debate the tremendous complacency that is offered by Conservative Members, and not least from the Minister. There has been an attempt to divert attention elsewhere and to excuse and to provide other reasons. The height of this was reached when the Minister spoke about refuse


collecting in Warwickshire, a service and area far from the motion that we are debating.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I was saying that there was a great shortage of service industry workers throughout the country. Surely the hon. Gentleman will not deny that.

Mr. Pavitt: I do not deny that. I am objecting to the idea that, because there is a shortage of labour in the service industries, conditions and standards of pay can be less good than in commercial and industrial enterprises. The inevitable social consequence is that people are turned away from working in the hospitals, the social services and the town halls and are attracted to jobs which are not so socially useful but more highly paid. It is that question which the Minister has dodged and to which I hope that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will address himself.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shersby: It is unsatisfactory for Labour Members to blame the Government for every problem which faces public service in the Greater London area. As a London Member representing Uxbridge in the periphery of western London, I know about the difficult and intractable problems facing public service in my constituency. The only solution to the problem will be a fresh, careful and considered approach by the London borough councils, the Greater London Council and the Government. It is no good blaming the Government for every problem facing London service workers. A co-operative effort is required.
We have heard that more pay is required for public service workers. Few of us would disagree that public service workers in London find that pay is one of their major problems. We know that the question of the London weighting allowance is going to the Pay Board. I add my voice to those who have expressed the hope that the reference will indeed be a speedy one. We cannot afford to wait for months while the board makes up its mind. In talking about pay we have to recognise that there are tremendous counter-attractions from other employment in the London area and it is this other employment which is siphoning

off those who have traditionally worked in London Transport.
In my constituency of Uxbridge the attraction of highly-paid employment at London Airport is one of the difficulties to be faced. It is not hard for the kind of people who traditionally worked in London Transport to find extremely highly-paid employment in the airport hotels and in the firms providing ancillary services. Discussing these matters will not make those people go back to London Transport. Neither will higher pay or a higher London weighting allowance.
These things are all-important but one of the key factors, which has to be dealt with by the Greater London Council and the London boroughs, is that of housing for key public service employees, for those working in transport, teachers, local government officials and so on. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) referred to his objection to the tied cottage. We are all ready quickly to object to the tied cottage principle. It is instinctive. However, we have to take a completely fresh look at this question of providing accommodation for key service personnel.
For example, I do not believe that it would be impossible for the London borough councils or the GLC to provide a greater amount of accommodation for those key workers. I am talking in terms of rented accommodation, houses built for sale and encouragement to private developers to build houses in the outer London areas. There has to be a combination of all three approaches to make more housing available. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) referred to the difficulty of finding accommodation for those without a roof over their heads. I share his concern. Equally the London boroughs and the GLC have for too long dodged this problem of dealing with key service workers in London.
I served on a London borough council for 12 years and I know that when we discussed this problem of providing accommodation for teachers, transport workers, local government officials or anyone else, everyone pointed to the difficulty involved in drawing a demarcation line and deciding who should have the houses. We cannot go on saying that it is too difficult and that we cannot define the problem. The London boroughs and the GLC have


to get to grips with this and provide rented accommodation and houses for sale for clearly defined categories of key workers. They have a responsibility towards them in the same way as they have a responsibility towards, for example, engaged couples who are waiting to marry and wanting their own home. We need a balanced approach to the problem of providing houses for the community and providing houses for those who make the wheels in our community go round.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I very much want to call one more hon. Member who has been here throughout the whole of the debate. There are about five minutes left before the Minister replies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear this in mind.

Mr. Shersby: I take note of what you say, Mr. Speaker. I will make only one further point. I would have hoped very much that the GLC would decide to put more money into modernising the transport system instead of planning to spend something in the region of £100 million on the acquisition of privately rented accommodation.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: In listening to this debate I have the feeling that the Government—particularly the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State—are living in a different world. I listened last week to the Prime Minister on television optimistically protesting to the country that all was well, that there was no crisis and that we were on the crest of success. I heard the criticism by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) that we had exaggerated the position. Anyone living or working in London will see little relationship between the Prime Minister's words and the situation in the metropolis.
London is supposed to be the centre of Britain, its great financial centre. We have seen how its pride has been lowered, how it has been humiliated because of lack of housing, overcrowding, homelessness, high prices and traffic congestion. All these things speak for themselves. Yet we have had the complacency of the Under-Secretary who simply says that we have got full employment and, therefore, we ought to expect a breakdown. Or

he says that London was not so good when a Labour Government was in power and, therefore, it ought not to be so good under the Conservatives. That was what he said. May I put the matter simply because of the accusation of exaggeration.
We all know that people who live and work in London have special problems. They have to incur considerable expense. They suffer much discomfort. They travel long distances to work. There is congestion, inadequacy and a high cost of public transport and of living. Their cost of living is higher than anywhere else in the country. People have to pay large sums for accommodation, if it is available. Every London Member who holds a surgery must suffer heartbreak when he is asked to deal with the housing difficulties of his constituents. The long council-house waiting lists make many despair—and not only the young married couple—who seek to purchase a house.
The Government boast of their desire to encourage home ownership, yet to buy a house in London, even the older type, means being asked to pay an average price of £12,000. The renting of property often costs £14 a week. How can the average person with an income of £3,000 a year secure a mortgage and bear the interest rates involved? The rate of remuneration in public transport is such that few people are attracted to it. We have heard that London Transport is short of 4,500 bus drivers and conductors. There are 400 buses off the road because of the shortage of engineering and maintenance staff. In the London area British Railways are short of over 600 railway guards and over 200 station and vehicle staff.
The Minister ought to recognise that there is not only a serious problem but an appalling situation. Phase 3 offers increases of what? Only 7 per cent. of the average pay bill, with a maximum of £350 a year or £2·25 per week. How can these workers, with all the expense of living and travelling to work, be attracted to these forms of employment when there is such a low reward for their services? Sir Desmond Plummer has prescribed the remedy of offering houses to them. Where from?
Look at the position with regard to education. It is not only the teachers


who are suffering in the present situation, but thousands of London children. There is a shortage of nearly 300 full-time teachers and over 200 part-time teachers. About 15,000 schoolchildren in inner London are affected. Everyone must recognise the vital importance of continuity in education and what it means to the nation if education on this scale is neglected.
How do the Government deal with education? They even—at first—sought to impose restrictions on heating in schools. The Minister has probably read the Press release issued by ILEA on 15th November dealing with the ridiculous salary increase that was offered. How can teachers be attracted by such a derisory award? How can they possibly be expected to continue with their services at that rate of pay?
What is needed is a true realisation of the position. Instead of that we have the pig-headed obstinacy of the Prime Minister. He still thinks that he is in the Whips' Office. He talks about the Leader of the GLC posturing. Let the Prime Minister cease his own posturing and come down to earth. After all, the GLC is the governing body for London. The Labour Party was elected to govern the GLC by a large majority. Unless the Prime Minister wants a complete breakdown of the services, let him meet the leader of the council and discuss the situation frankly and fully. Let him abandon his obstinacy and deal realistically with the pay problem so that the services can be made attractive to the people they need.
The motion censures the Government in no uncertain terms. Such censure, to any thinking and unbiased person, is well deserved.

6.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): This debate has been a somewhat curious mixture. We have had excellent contributions, and I do not deny the passions and strong feelings that London Members who have spoken have shown. But from time to time I felt that there was far too much doom and gloom and almost an air of self-induced neurosis in some of the speeches. That will not help London or its problems. I immediately rebut some of the things which have been said.

Neither my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment nor the Government as a whole are complacent about the situation. We acknowledge that in certain areas the situation is very serious.
I take up first the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) because one wants to look at slightly wider horizons before dealing with some of the more specific problems. The population of London is 7,300,000. It is falling and on present trends it will be less than 7 million by 1981. The Layfield Panel commented that this should not bring major social problems and, indeed, would result in a better environment for those remaining in London. The net outflow in recent years is estimated at about 100,000 people a year. This has been encouraged by Governments of both parties by the development of places like Harlow, Milton Keynes, Basildon and the rest.
A lot has been said in the debate about transport problems and commuters but, overall, commuter traffic into central London is beginning to decline. About 1,100,000 people travel into central London on weekdays between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m., returning home between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. It might be of interest to break down that figure. About 40 per cent. come in by rail, about 34 per cent. by Underground, about 13 per cent. by bus and about 12 per cent. by car. Some rail routes are operating very much to capacity, with all the discomfort that this means to the passengers. This is particularly true of the Southern Region. On the other hand other lines, particularly those coming into the northern termini, still have considerable capacity available.
It is also a fact that new Underground lines like the Victoria Line and the Fleet Line, now being built, do not mean that more peak hour travellers are carried but that the load is spread. The newly-generated traffic for the Underground is off-peak. This is a good thing, because there is ample capacity off-peak and in the longer term this helps in the matter of finance. In fact, these two new lines spread the load rather than increase the number of travellers coming into London.
Increasingly also there is clear evidence of a great deal of commuting from suburb to suburb across London or orbitally


around it rather than from the outskirts into the centre. The problems posed are real enough. Increasingly the situation is one in which cars are used because of the greater flexibility they offer in getting from home to factory or office and in returning in the outer suburbs. It is a matter which the GLC will have to look at when it considers improvements to roads orbitally in the outer London areas because the Government's responsibility largely ends with the radial major schemes into the centre.
The debate has brought out many conflicts and problems in trying to tackle a serious situation. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West pointed out, it would be easy and possible to solve the housing problem if we completely scrapped the green belt. But I am sure that none of us wants to do that, not least because it is important for Londoners as well as in the national interest. Although clearly I cannot comment on the specific points my hon. Friend raised, since the normal planning procedures have to be gone through, I assure him that we are strongly committed to preserving an effective green belt round London.
I recognise the passion and strength of feeling of the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) as a London Member and a Londoner, but he painted an increasingly gloomy picture and did not pay tribute to some of the things the Government have done to try to ease the situation, not least in transport but also in other matters.
No doubt the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) got his headlines with his attacks on spivs and gangsters, but I must remind him that it is not for Ministers of the Crown to tell the courts how they should or should not operate. Once one starts on that course, one is on a very slippery slope.
But I accept what many hon. Members have said about the housing problem in London. There is a genuine dilemma here as between those who favour the tied cottage principle and those—the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) among them—who would have nothing to do with it. I recall the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) in a housing debate putting a specific suggestion

to me that we should look at the possibility of building houses for transport workers on land around Underground stations.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) referred to the problems of workers in transport in London, because they really need to be living near to their bus, rail or tube depots. It is particularly important for them to be able to do so because they often work difficult shifts, and if one is turning out early in the morning to take out a train or bus or tube one does not want a long ride in order to get to the depot.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 6th November that he had invited the public service bodies to consider, with the Chairman of the Housing Corporation, ways in which redundant or under-utilised land they own in London could be used to help their employees and at the same time to increase the overall housing stock. This should ensure full use of land in their ownership, both to their own benefit and to the wider public good.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has now written to the chairmen of all these bodies suggesting urgent action on these lines. I hope that the Corporation will play a key rôle in this, because involved are various public service bodies, including British Rail, London Transport, the electricity board, the hospital boards and the rest, together with the local authorities. I can pledge on behalf of the Government that whatever help is needed from the Department, it will be given.
I believe that this will be an early and effective way, as it were, to meet those who have argued from the tied cottage point of view, although here I cannot anticipate the final form of the arrangements, and there are local difficulties in trying to establish a house clearly just for a person in a particular job, which the hon. Member for Tottenham recognised and which I know the Chairman of the Housing Corporation recognises. But we are pressing on with this as a matter of urgency.
Much has been said about the Dockland Study. Last year 177 acres were released from the main study area to


provide for early housing development, and new homes for 5,000 people will be starting next year. This is in advance of the main scheme. Discussions are shortly to take place at a further meeting between the Department, the GLC and the various London boroughs concerned.
Hon. Members also mentioned the empty houses in London. I remind them that the Government have advised local authorities in the White Paper "Better Homes: The Next Priorities", published a few months ago, to make compulsory purchase orders when they find owners blatantly disregarding their obligations to bring housing into use. At the same time, proposals now before the House in the Local Government Bill will mean that empty properties will be able to be charged 100 per cent. rates instead of the present 50 per cent. and this will also help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton) had interesting things to say about the teaching situation, as did other hon. Members. I have two points to make on that. First, the standards of staffing in London are higher than anywhere else in the country, and the figures have to be looked at in that light. Secondly, never before in this country have schools been so well staffed numerically as they are in inner London—that was the report of the ILEA only two or three months ago. I will not say any more about education, therefore, except that there are specific problems in specific schools. I do not think that money is the complete answer. There are other problems of long-standing nature and duration which are not capable of easy solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clap-ham and other hon. Members pressed the matter of the London allowances being examined by the Pay Board. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has explained to the chairman of the board the real urgency of the problem and the need for a report to be made at the earliest possible moment. The chairman has accepted the need and has promised to do all that he and his staff can—

Mr. Thomas Cox: When?

Mr. Speed: That is a matter for them. They have to do it. I am sure that the

hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central would like it to be a good report because virtually every category of employee mentioned today could benefit from it. It must be a comprehensive and good report, and for that reason it will take a little time. However, I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State all that was said in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made a very good speech about the problems of London Transport. It was echoed by various other hon. Members including the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury and the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins). What was not said and what did not come out in the debate was the real cash help which the present Government have given to rail and bus services in London and the South East. Since June 1970 the Government have committed nearly £130 million in capital investment grant to the gross cost of some £200 million of improvements to London's rail transport, including £75 million on Underground projects like the Fleet Line, stage 1, the Heathrow link, the new Piccadilly Line rolling stock, the Great Northern surburban electrification, London Bridge resignalling, Feltham resignalling and other new rolling stock. It is a very major list.
When I say that up to the end of the last financial year London and the South East have received 87 per cent. of all infrastructure grant, leaving only 13 per cent. for the rest of the country, it is hardly right to argue that London is not getting its fair share. If hon. Members representing constituencies in other parts of the country said that they were not getting their fair share, I should have more sympathy with them. However, this imbalance has to be redressed and it is being redressed.
As for buses, the new bus grant means that since the Government came into office we have paid London Transport Executive more than £7 million. That compares with less than £1·5 million paid by the previous administration between 1968 and 1970. We are also pressing ahead on the conversion of the Circle and Hammersmith and City lines to one-man operation for which again the Government are paying 75 per cent. grant. It is hoped that they will come into operation within a year or so.

Mr. Ronald Brown: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour administration wrote off the whole London Transport debt in 1969?

Mr. Speed: They may have written off the debt but a great deal of investment was required, and it is now coming from the Government in hard cash.
What is quite breath-taking is that apparently every group is now to be regarded as a special one. They have only to put in a wage claim and in the eyes of the Opposition they become a special group, whether they are miners, London Transport workers or anyone else. However, if stage 3 of the Government's policy is to work it is ridiculous to argue that everyone is a special case.
The problems with public services in London are not new. They have been exacerbated by the success of the Government's

growth policy, the way that the economy has grown and the demands on labour. But the record of the Government in backing London Transport with hard cash and in taking the measures on housing that we are taking is one of which we can be proud. It is not reflected in the Opposition motion, which is ungracious and ignores the dedicated work of tens of thousands of men and women to keep going London's services, which are still the best in the world.

I confidently recommend the House to reject the motion.

Question put,

That this House censures Her Majesty's Government for allowing the essential public services of the capital city to deteriorate to the point where they are now reaching breakdown and are causing grave hardship to the population of Greater London.

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 280.

Division No. 10.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Albu, Austen
Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hamling, William


Armstrong, Ernest
Davidson, Arthur
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hardy, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Harper, Joseph


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Austick, David
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hattersley, Roy


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Deakins, Eric
Hatton, F.


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Baxter, William
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Heffer, Eric S.


Beaney, Alan
Dempsey, James
Hooson, Emlyn


Beith, Alan
Doig, Peter
Horam, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dormand, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bidwell, Sydney
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Huckfield, Leslie


Bishop, E. S.
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Booth, Albert
Eadie, Alex
Hunter, Adam


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Edelman, Maurice
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Janner, Greville


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bradley, Tom
Ellis, Tom
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Broughton, Sir Alfred
English, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Evans, Fred
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ewing, Harry
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Buchan, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Johnston, Walter (Derby, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Foot, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Judd, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Forrester, John
Kaufman, Gerald


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kelley, Richard


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Russell


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kinnock, Neil


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Garrett, W. E.
Lambie, David


Coleman, Donald
Gilber, Dr. John
Lamborn, Harry


Conlan, Bernard
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lambond, James


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Golding, John
Latham, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lawson, George


Crawshaw, Richard
Gourlay, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Cronin, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Leonard, Dick


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Griffths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold




Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
O'Malley, Brian
Stallard, A. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Oram, Bert
Steel, David


Lipton, Marcus
Orbach, Maurice
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lomas, Kenneth
Orme, Stanley
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Loughlin, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Stott, Roger


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Padley, Walter
Strang, Gavin


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Paget, R. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McBride, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McCartney, Hugh
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Swain, Thomas


McElhone, Frank
Pardoe, John
Taverne, Dick


McGuire, Michael
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Machin, George
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Mackie, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Tinn, James


Mackintosh, John P.
Probert, Arthur
Tope, Graham


Maclennan, Robert
Radice, Giles
Torney, Tom


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Tuck, Raphael


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Varley, Eric G.


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Richard, Ivor
Wainwright, Edwin


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robert, Albert (Normanton)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marquand, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wallace, George


Marsden, F.
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n &amp; R'dnor)
Watkins, David


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Weitzman, David


Mayhew, Christopher
Rose, Paul B.
Wellbeloved, James


Meacher, Michael
Ross Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rowlands, Ted
Whitehead, Phillip


Millan, Bruce
Sandelson, Neville
Whitlock, William


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Willey Rt. Hn. Frederick


Milne, Edward
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Molloy, William
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Sillars, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Moyle, Roland
Silverman, Julius
Woof, Robert


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Skinner, Dennis



Murray, Ronald King
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oakes, Gordon
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Ogden, Eric
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Michael Cocks.


O'Halloran, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie





NOES


Adley, Robert
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Foster, Sir John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carlisle, Mark
Fowler, Norman


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fox, Marcus


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Channon, Paul
Fry, Peter


Astor, John
Chapman, Sydney
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Atkins, Humphrey
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gardner, Edward


Awdry, Daniel
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gibson-Watt, David


Baker, Kenneth, (St. Marylebone)
Churchill, W. S.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Cockeram, Eric
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cooke, Robert
Goodhart, Philip


Batsford, Brian
Cooper, A. E.
Goodhew, Victor


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Gorst, John


Bell, Ronald
Cormack, Patrick
Gower, Raymond


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Costain, A. P.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crowder, F. P.
Gray, Hamish


Benyon, W.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Green, Alan


Berry, Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Biffen, John
Dean, Paul
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gurden, Harold


Blaker, Peter
Dixon, Piers
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Drayson, Burnaby
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Body, Richard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bowden, Andrew
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bray, Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Haselhurst, Alan


Brewis, John
Emery, Peter
Hastings, Stephen


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eyre, Reginald
Havers, Sir Michael


Brocklebank-Flower, Christopher
Fell, Anthony
Hawkins, Paul


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hay, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fidler, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney


Bryan, Sir Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Heseltine, Michael


Buck, Antony
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh North)
Hicks, Robert


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Higgins, Terence L.


Burden, F. A.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hiley, Joseph


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fortescue, Tim
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)







Holland, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Holt, Miss Mary
Miscampbell, Norman
Shersby, Michael


Hordern, Peter
Michell, Lt-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Simeons, Charles


Hornby, Richard
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame (Patricia)
Moate, Roger
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Gregory (Reigate)
Money, Ernie
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Soref, Harold


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Monro, Hector
Speed, Keith


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Montgomery, Fergus
Spence, John


Iremonger, T. L.
More, Jasper
Sproat, Iain


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stainton, Keith


James, David
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)
Morrison, Charles
Stewart-Smith, Geoffey (Belper)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Mudd, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Jessel, Toby
Neave, Airey
Stokes, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sutcliffe, John


Jopling, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Tapsell, Peter


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Nott, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Oppenhelm, Mrs. Sally
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Kimball, Marcus
Parkinson, Cecil
Tebbit, Norman


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Percival, Ian
Temple, John M.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kinsey, J. R.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kirk, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Knigth, Mrs. Jill
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tilney, Sir John


Knox, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Lamont, Norman
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Trew, Peter


Lane, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tugendhat, Christopher


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Le, Marchant, Spencer
Quennell, Miss J. M.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Raison, Timothy
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'field)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Waddington, David


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Redmond, Robert
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Loveridge, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Luce, R. N.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Walters, Dennis


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene


MacArthur, Ian
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McCrindle, R. A.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wiggin, Jerry


McLaren, Martin
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Ridsdale, Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Madel, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rost, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Marten, Neil
Royle, Anthony
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Mather, Carol
Russell, Sir Ronald
Younger, Hn. George


Maude, Angus
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sainsbury, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mawby, Ray
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)

Question accordingly negatived.

MUSEUM CHARGES

7.12 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move,
That this House considers the proposed imposition on 1st January of entrance charges to the national museums and galleries inopportune and undesirable.
The motion is little more than a statement of the obvious. It is also obvious that public opinion is strongly against the charges. From the beginning the charges have been deplored, with rare exceptions, by all the trustees of all the galleries and museums concerned and by all those people, a small but influential section of our society, who care about matters of art and education.
Whatever the case for the charges may have been when they were first put forward by the Government in 1970 in the atmosphere of euphoria and folly which usually follows a General Election, there is certainly no case for them now. The House should consider itself fortunate that, as a result of a series of accidents and legal complications, the imposition of the charges has been postponed for three years. During the passage of those years the Selsdon Man philosophy that inspired them has been abandoned by the Government in its entirety. The Government no longer consider it necessarily immoral to subsidise "lame ducks" in industry, nor do they consider it wrong to subsidise some of our social activities and services.
Entrance charges to museums and galleries are now one of the few discredited survivors of this philosophy of a bygone age. It is wholly irrelevant under present conditions. But, unless the House supports the motion, the trustees of the 18 national museums and galleries affected will be forced, all of them with the greatest reluctance, to impose the charges from 1st January. It will not be because there is any statutory obligation on them to do so but because they will be ordered to do so by Lord Eccles, the "Minister for the Arts", and it is he who pays the piper.
The trustees will be ordered to take this step at a time of violent inflation. It is beyond dispute that at such a time anything that increases the price of any commodity or service, or which raises the cost of living by even a small amount, is to be deplored. The public will resent it all the more when they know, as they do, that this increase is not due to any rise in world prices for which the Government are not responsible but is a deliberate decision of the Government.
Almost daily Ministers say how anxious they are to curb inflation. They say they are doing everything possible within their powers to do so, and that in many spheres the Treasury is keeping down the cost of living by subsidies. Yet in this small but sensitive sphere the Government are doing the reverse. They are deliberately raising prices, not because that is necessary but because they want to do so in fulfilment of a principle they enunciated three years ago, directly after the General Election. It is surely indisputable that to impose the charges now, and thereby add to the inflationary pressure, is inopportune.
The argument was advanced in 1970, and may be used again tonight by Government spokesmen, that in many civilised European countries museums and galleries charge entrance fees. That is true of some of them, but not all, and it is not true of many of the great museums and galleries in the United States. As far as I am aware, all the museums and galleries in Europe that charge entrance fees have a free day every week, so that none of their country's citizens, however poor, is deprived of the joy, inspiration and stimulus derived from visiting the treasures in their galleries.
If the Government's proposals are put into effect, Britain will have the distinction

of being the only country in Europe whose museums and galleries do not have such a free day, except for the British Museum, whose trustees, in spite of Lord Eccles's strong disapproval, have insisted on having one free day a week, although the museum has been made to charge double entrance fees on one other day.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only civilised countries in Europe that charge for admission to museums? Even in China there is an admission charge.

Mr. Strauss: I am sure that the House is grateful for that interesting but rather irrelevant bit of information.

Mr. William Hamling: They are Bolsheviks over there now.

Mr. Strauss: What is interesting is that there is a move in Europe to do away with charges. They have already been abolished in all the museums and galleries in Rotterdam, and in many in Antwerp, and the same thing is happening among enlightened local authorities in Great Britain.
The Greater London Council has this year abolished entrance charges at Ken-wood and Marble Hill House. One of the reasons for doing this—I hope the House will note—was the marked effect that entrance charges were having on attendance figures. At Kenwood in 1968–69, the last year of free entrance, the total attendance was 227,000. That dropped to 203,000 the following year and 152,000 the year after. Last year the figure was back to 180,000 mainly because of the special exhibitions which were held there and the extensive and intensive advertising attached to them. At Marble Hill House the attendance dropped from 31,000 before charges were imposed to 6,000, and now it has crept back slowly to 18,000.
Other figures indicate convincingly that entrance charges deter the public from going to galleries and museums. We have been told throughout that that is the last thing the Government want, but it is bound to happen if entrance charges are made.
Last year there was a large drop in the numbers of people visiting the


National Gallery. In June, July and August the figures of attendance fell by 53,000. The gallery authorities have reason to believe that this was partly due to the general and widespread belief that entrance charges had already been imposed and were in force. They therefore put up a notice outside the gallery stating that admission was free, and there was an immediate increase in attendance. The next month, September, the figure rose by 37,000.
Governments have frequently told us that existing or even increased charges have not deterred the public from visiting Hampton Court, the Tower of London, and similar attractions on the established tourist routes. No one disputes this. But we are concerned with something quite different. Our great cultural and historic treasure houses, where the finest examples of British, European and, indeed, world art are on view, are places where people drop in casually maybe out of simple curiosity, in search of aesthetic satisfaction or stimulation, call it what one will. At these places attendances are bound to drop if charges are imposed, even if certain exemptions are made. That is inevitable.
It seems that the only serious argument ever advanced by the Government during the long and frequent discussions that we have had on this subject is that the cost of maintaining museums and galleries has risen, that it will rise further, and that it is, therefore, not unreasonable to ask those who visit these places to make their contribution. In fact, I suggest it will be utterly unreasonable as well as anti-social to do so.
Museums and galleries are part of our educational equipment, and any charge on entry to the galleries and museums is a charge on people enjoying our educational arrangements. Galleries and museums form an important part of our educational equipment. The costs of all other sections of our educational activities have been rising equally—schools and free libraries—but the Government are not asking the beneficiaries of these other parts of our educational arrangements to make a special contribution to the Treasury.
Why, then, have the Government picked on this one section alone? I do not

know. I hope that the Secretary of State will answer that question. However, I ask the House to notice this important point. The amount of money that will be raised by accepting this principle of charging is derisory and has no relationship whatever to the cost of maintaining the museums and galleries.
According to an answer that I received from the Secretary of State recently, the net income, after deducting the heavy costs which average 16 per cent., would be £900,000 a year. Government expenditure, I was also told, on the national museums and galleries for maintenance and special purchase grants amounts to £23 million a year. So the charges will reimburse no more than 4 per cent. of Government expenditure. Is it really worth while imposing entrance charges to raise this derisory sum?
If, as is suggested in today's papers, the Government propose to make a last-minute concession and exempt children and old-age pensioners from these charges, there will be a further drop in the income, which will amount to no more than about £700,000—equivalent to a 3 per cent. reimbursement of Government expenditure on national museums and galleries.
I ask again: is it really worth while stopping our tradition of free access to our museums and galleries to get in this paltry amount? The answer obviously is "No".

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one question which is directly pertinent to what he is putting? If the £1 million, or whatever it is, that is envisaged as being collected were specifically appropriated to secure the benefit of the layout, improvement and purchasing grant of the respective museums, would he agree that that would be a worthwhile objective?

Mr. Strauss: I understand that that is one of the proposals that will be suggested by the Government as a concession to stave off the opposition of some of their supporters. I want to know what that proposal is. Will it mean that the museums and galleries will get an extra £1 million a year for the trustees to do with what they like, or will it mean a reduction of an equivalent amount in the grant of aid that the Government are


giving to the museums and galleries? I cannot express any opinion on that.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It it means the former, an extra £1 million or whatever it is for the museums, would the right hon. Gentleman then feel able to support it?

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Take a look at the road fund.

Mr. Strauss: If it were a net total addition it would to some extent modify one's opposition. However, I should still strongly oppose the principle of charging people to go into our museums and Galleries. That is bound to discourage many people who would enjoy going there from doing so.
I am against getting money from museum visitors even if it goes back to the museums for the trustees to dispense how they like. However, we shall see.
One of the strongest objections to the proposed charges is that they will be blatantly divisive. They will in no way deter wealthy people or those who are reasonably well-to-do from enjoying the museums and galleries. The damage will be confined to the poor. That is the section of the community that will suffer. Does the Secretary of State really consider that it is right in our society that any of our people should be deprived through poverty of the opportunity of seeing their national and cultural treasures?
There is one argument in favour of these charges which I think has now been abandoned and which I mention only because it has had the distinguished support of the Prime Minister, who advanced it in the House in answer to a supplementary question which I put to him some time ago. The right hon. Gentleman then told us that his musical education had been helped by attending concerts at the Albert Hall and that he valued these all the more because he had to pay an entrance charge. However, he made no mention of those many young people whose love and knowledge of music and potential talent might have been equally stimulated if they, too, had attended these concerts but were unable to do so as they had not got the money to pay to go in. Apparently he had no sympathy for them. I believe that the Prime Minister is now almost the

only member of the Government who enthusiastically supports the idea of entrance charges.
I understand that the Secretary of State will try to conciliate some of her supporters by making a number of minor concessions, while leaving intact the principle of charging. I am told that those concessions are likely to be exemption from charges on children and old-age pensioners. These exemptions have been strenuously opposed by the Government throughout the battle that we have had on these museum charges, and we have been told that they would be impossible to make. We have been told that if these exemptions were effected the amount of money that would accrue to the Government as a result of the charges would be so small that they would hardly be worth while. That argument is right. If these people are exempted—and we have tried to get them exempted but we have been told that it is impossible—the proposal to impose charges at all becomes more and more indefensible and ridiculous.
The net income deriving from the charges would then be nearer £700,000 than £900,000. Again I ask whether it is worth while doing all this and breaking our tradition of free entrance to our museums. Is it worth breaking our country's proud tradition for such a paltry and irrelevant amount? This tradition has been under sentence of death for three years. Tonight we have an opportunity of effecting a last-minute reprieve. If we do not do so, on 1st January, for the first time in our history, the barriers will go up at the doors of these museums and galleries and all those who feel that they cannot afford to pay entrance charges, and all the usual casual visitors, will be excluded.
We therefore invite the House to say that that is wrong and undesirable. We invite the House to say that it shall not happen and to declare, in the words of the motion, that the imposition of these charges on 1st January would be "inopportune and undesirable".

7.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I rise to oppose the motion. As the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) knows, we have been over much of the


ground over and over again, particularly during the Committee stage of the Museums Bill, and I think he will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) answered all the points with his unfailing thoroughness and courtesy. I do not wish to go over them all again, and I shall try to answer some of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I feel that before doing so I must correct one wrong statement.
The right hon. Gentleman said that if charges are imposed at museums and galleries it will be the first time in our history that this has been done. That is not so. Charges were imposed at many museums and galleries before 1945, and some charges were abolished in that year. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would wish me to correct his statement, and now I shall, if I may, reply to some of the points that he made.

Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Lady said that my statement about charges was inaccurate. It can be called that, but that is not strictly true. What happened was that for a few years charges were imposed at a few museums and galleries on two days a week for the purpose of keeping out visitors and keeping the galleries free for students. If the right hon. Lady's purpose is to keep visitors out of the galleries, she is justified in carrying out her policy. The previous charges were imposed for a short period for the purpose of excluding people on those days. That was what was done, and it was highly regrettable.

Mrs. Thatcher: My purpose was merely to correct a wrong statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, who said that if charges are imposed now it will be the first time that this has happened. That is not true.
The Government propose to introduce entrance charges as a contribution towards the large sums of new money which the national galleries and museums need, and these demands have to be considered alongside those of other arts, such as drama and music, where the audience contribute about half the cost. In 1969–70, Government assistance for the arts in general was £22 million, and of that sum £13 million was spent on the national

museums and galleries. In 1973–74 the total spent on the arts, including £6 million for land adjacent to the Royal Opera House, is estimated at £49·8 million, of which £23 million will be spent on museums.
That is an increase for the museums of £10 million compared with 1969–70, but even so it is not enough, and for four reasons. The first is that, in general, attendances have been rising every year, due to the growth of secondary and higher education and the tremendous increase in the number of tourists from abroad. Even now, most of the museums are not adequately equipped to deal with the numbers at the peak season, and once a gallery is overcrowded visitors cannot study the objects and enjoy them as they should.
Secondly, the costs of conservation, display and security of the collections increase every year. This year, we calculate that the actual cost for every visitor will be about £1·25 per head. We cannot mechanise museums. If all the modern techniques of conservation, air conditioning, display and information are fully used with adequate space and amenities for the public, the costs will rise much faster than the revaluation which is allowed for the effects of inflation. Indeed, the £10 million extra per year is already an indication of that fact.
Thirdly, it is not enough because the schools are finding the museums very valuable as aids to the teaching of history, art, archaeology and science. Teachers need help to make use of museums, and children need to be allowed rooms in which they can handle objects and learn about the collections. Fourthly, the sums are not yet enough because the provincial museums badly need more help from the nationals by way of advice, loans and conservation, and that again will add to the cost of the nationals.
Although the Government have been most generous in giving extra money to the museums, my noble Friend the Paymaster-General still feels that it is not enough to do all the things that we would wish to do to bring the pleasures of the museums to the people who should enjoy them.

Mr. John Gorst: On the matter of provincial museums, does it make sense, for example, for a levy to be charged at the Ulster Museum when the


result of the collection in it may be no more than equal to the expense of collecting it?

Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot answer for the Ulster Museum. My hon. Friend should take the matter up with one of my hon. Friends from the Northern Ireland Office. The cost of wages at national museums is borne by the Department of the Environment.
The Government have either to postpone what should be done in the museums or enable the money to be found. The museums themselves are increasingly appealing to private donors and to bodies such as the "Friends of the Museum" the National Art Collections Fund and National Heritage. The museums now charge up to 50p entrance for a special exhibition, against half that sum only a few years ago. They do this because the increased expenses are so clear and unavoidable. The expense of maintaining their permanent collections has risen in the same way, and that is why the Government have decided that there ought to be a small entrance charge as a contribution to these services. The entrance charges which we propose are very reasonable, given the size of the museums' needs and the requirements of the other arts which are met partly by subsidy and partly by contribution from the users.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned inflation. I have already said that the amount which goes to the museums is far greater than the inflationary amount. Equally, the charges that are proposed have not gone up with the index of wages and salaries. The index of wage rates in October 1970, the very date which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned as that on which it was proposed to put on charges, was 110·6. For August 1973 the index of wage rates was 153·9. That makes the entrance charges proposed even more modest compared with the increased salaries and wages that are available to pay them.
It has been difficult to get across to some of those who have opposed charges just how large the needs of the museums are and how difficult it is to find extra resources when all the other arts are in the queue and their users are already paying a much higher proportion of the cost of supporting them. The Government therefore considered that these needs

could be met more easily over a shorter period with some contribution from the visitor. We had proposed to place the proceeds in a pool to be used in accordance with the most urgent priorities.
This has led to the erroneous suggestion that the Treasury would take the £1 million and give nothing back. To dispel this idea, we are ready to allow each museum to keep the proceeds of the charges, less the value added tax, and to use that money for agreed purposes, other than for acquisitions, which are cared for by the quinquennial grant. This is a change in our arrangements which we know has been much wanted by the museums and galleries and it will make it clear to everybody that they are to benefit directly from the charges.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: My right hon. Friend will realise that this is a most important point to those of us who have been against these charges from the beginning, and it may not be enough for us to come back and join the Government. If the money goes back, will that mean that those galleries which are receiving a grant will have their grant cut in any way or will they continue to have exactly the same amount plus the proceeds from the turnstiles?

Mrs. Thatcher: On the whole, if museums and galleries had exactly the same grant as in the previous year, even in updated terms, they would be much worse off than they are already. The best way to illustrate this is to say that it is money that they will have available in hand for minor works, which are for them to decide. When I said "for agreed purposes" I mentioned the quinquennial grant for purchases. But we also have a ceiling on the numbers of people we must not exceed. It was that kind of thing that I had in mind the money that they receive they will keep to enable them to do minor works. It is specifically money in the hand.
The capital programmes for museums are subject to the same conditions as other capital programmes in my Department, in health and in local government. They are of course subject to the state of the economy for the time being, but that is no different from any other Department.

Mr. Cormack: This is a point of crucial significance to at least half a


dozen Members on this side. Does this mean, without any equivocation, that the money received from entrance charges will be additional to any other sums voted for acquisition?

Mrs. Thatcher: Acquisition has nothing to do with this money. This money cannot be used for acquisition, but the grant is determined quinquennially and will continue to be determined in that way.
Turning now to some of the right hon. Gentleman's other remarks, I do not believe that the modest charges proposed, of lop for an adult and 5p for pensioners and children, will deter people from visiting museums. The frequent visitor will be able to buy a season ticket admitting him to all the 18 national museums and galleries for a year for £1, or 50p in the case of a pensioner or a child.
The statistics that we have of attendances at the national museums and galleries are not very reliable, because until there is an entrance charge the counting of visitors is uncertain. However, we know accurately the figures for museums and historic places which make a charge. From the general trends of both sets of figures, it is clear that attendances at museums which charge are rising just as fast as, and sometimes faster than, attendances at those which are free.
I have a whole list. I cannot possibly read all the names, but one of the most telling is that for the National Museum of Wales, which is free, and also the Welsh Folk Museum, for which charges are imposed. At the National Museum, where entrance is free, the attendances have fallen substantially from 1970 to 1972. For the Welsh Folk Museum, where the charges are lop for adults, and 5p for children, attendances have risen over 1970, 1971 and 1972—[HON. MEMBERS: "What are the figures?"] It would take a long time to give the figures, but that is the reverse of the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.
There are other museums at which charges have been imposed. At Norwich Museum, attendances have risen, as they have at Barnard Castle—

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: Would my right hon. Friend agree that in many museums and art galleries, particularly that of Norwich, which is often quoted, there is a totally free day each week, and that this day is never taken into consideration when the costs and charges on other days are assessed?

Mrs. Thatcher: May I come to the free day argument later? At Barnard Castle and the Bowes Museum attendances have also increased. At the Beaulieu Palace and Motor Museum, where charges are 35p for adults and half that amount for children, attendances have risen substantially.
At some museums which are free—the right hon. Member mentioned the National Gallery—for a time attendances went down, and at others where there are charges, like the British Museum, attendances went up. Over the whole range, where charges are levied, attendances have been rising every bit as fast as, and in some cases faster than, those where admission is free. It seems from that fact that people are prepared to go to museums which charge when they have something that the people want to see and display it attractively.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I am trying to follow the right hon. Lady's argument. She says that it is difficult to determine the number of people who visit museums which are free, yet she makes a comparison between those figures and the figures for museums at which a charge is made. How does she arrive at the first set of figures?

Mrs. Thatcher: There are spot checks from time to time—some museums do them more frequently than others—and then the figures are grossed up. That is in the case of those which do not charge. If one gives exact figures in those cases, the exactitude is misleading, but one has a general idea from the trend. Also, a specific survey has been carried out in a few museums. My point is that the evidence we have is that charges do not deter and that where there are charges attendances can often increase when the museums are showing what people want to see.
There are, of course, reliable figures of visitors for such places as the Tower of London, which charges. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want me


to raise this matter, because it is much too strong an argument against his case. It is interesting because the facts show how little there is in the Opposition's new enthusiasm for free entry.
In March 1970 the Labour Government doubled the charges at the Tower from 10p to 20p. I do not remember any voice raised in protest and there was not a Question in this House. If there had been a protest it would have been ill-founded, because in 1969, the last year of charges at 10p, the number of visitors was 2·3 million, whereas in 1972, after the increase, the number was 2·7 million. This year it will probably be over 3 million. People pay to see something they want and they take their children. The Tower is also a great attraction for the children. I must confess that I envy the capacity of the last Government to raise charges with virtually nil protest.
The second point is the argument about our national heritage. It is said that the great masterpieces which illustrate our heritage ought on principle to be shown to the public free. Whatever may be included in a national heritage, it is certain that buildings are among the foremost glories of the past. No one has ever suggested that the public should visit free our historic palaces, castles, abbeys and other buildings. The Tower of London and Hampton Court are examples. The buildings are themselves without equal in our history. The Tower also contains a fine collection of armour and the Crown Jewels. A separate entrance charge is made for the jewels over and above the 20p entrance charge to the Tower. No one complains about either charge. No principle is broken when collections of objects, whether British or foreign in origin, are seen on payment of a charge.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be dealing later with two points which arise in Scotland in connection with the will of Mr. Henry Vaughan and the Torrie Collection. No wills or bequests need to be altered. My right hon. Friend will deal with these in more detail, but it may be helpful if I mention the matters about the Vaughan will briefly now.
The Trustees of the National Gallery of Scotland have, at the National Gallery at the Mound, a collection of Turner

drawings bequeathed to their predecessors under the 1887 will of Mr. Henry Vaughan. One of the conditions of the bequest was that the drawings in the collection should be exhibited all at one time to the public free of charge in January of each year. This requirement will be met after the introduction of charges by free admission to the National Gallery in Edinburgh at the Mound during January.
Other conditions include the requirement that the drawings
be exhibited to the public and copied subject to the same rules and regulations
as the Turner drawings at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.
My right hon. Friend will be dealing with this point more fully later; but to meet both the interpretations of that phrase which have been put forward he has asked the Trustees of the National Galleries of Scotland to make arrangements to ensure that interested members of the public, who wish to see the Turner drawings and do not wish to see any other collections at the National Gallery, have free admission to the Turners in months other than January. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Those are the conditions. The Turners have to be kept away from the light for the greater part of the year. They are shown only during one month in the year. They are then kept in a cabinet. That is why they are kept subject to such strict conditions. To show them all the time would destroy the pictures. In the Fitzwilliam Museum they are kept in a cabinet, I believe, the whole year round, and people who want to see them, for copying or for exhibiting, visit the museum and they are taken out of the cabinet for them to copy or exhibit. But to show them all the year round would destroy the heritage which it is wished to preserve.

Mr. John Smith: I quote from a letter from the director of the Fitzwilliam Museum to the Scottish Education Department, in which he said:
There has never been any bar, either to students or to members of the public at large, to seeing the drawings on any day of the year that the museum is open to the public.
That is free access every day, and not to something locked up in a drawer.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am sorry, but they have to be kept in a cabinet to preserve them. They are not kept on show. It is exactly what I am saying. They will be displayed for one whole month at the Mound, and then returned to their cabinet. When they are in that cabinet, people who wish to see them or to copy them can go, by special arrangement, to look at them, to take them out of the cabinet, exactly as they can in the Fitzwilliam Museum. But to have them on display for the whole year would destroy the very thing that one wishes to preserve. In the Fitzwilliam Museum they are in a cabinet the whole year round. I am glad to have cleared up that point.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall raised the matter of free days. There are very different arrangements about free times to see the museum collections. I have already mentioned the position in that particular gallery in Scotland, where things will be displayed free for the whole month of January. Arrangements have so far been agreed with the trustees as follows: at the National Gallery, a free day on Wednesday, balanced by doubling of the normal adult charge on Tuesdays and Thursdays; at the Tate Gallery, free admission from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the cost being met by the trustees own funds; at the National Gallery of Scotland and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, free Saturdays from mid-September to mid-June, balanced by a doubling of the normal adult charge from mid-June to mid-September; that is, two weeks extended at each end of the normal high charge period.
In addition, at the National Gallery at the Mound, the Turner drawings will be open free during January, and discussions are continuing with the Wallace Collection. So in many cases there are already arrangements for free access.

Mr. Ernle Money: This matter is of the deepest concern to many hon. Members on the Government side of the House, particularly as the whole sum involved in the surcharge for the free day is merely £60,000, and £3,000 in the case of the Wallace Collection. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government have not closed their minds to the possibility of putting our museums on the same basis

as every major museum in Europe and of allowing a free day without a surcharge? If my right hon. Friend can say, at any rate, that this matter will be kept open and considered, that will help—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Come off it

Mr. Money: Be quiet. If my right hon. Friend can say that, it will be of great importance to many of my hon. Friends.

Mrs. Thatcher: It is difficult to be as precise as my hon. Friend has been about the amounts involved in view of the unreliability of the statistics of the national museums and galleries. We have negotiated the arrangements that I have described with the trustees, and we should have to look at it again with them. My hon. Friend will bear in mind that now that they can keep the entrance charges that they have as money in the hand, they may be very willing and anxious to have the money from charges to do the things which they want to do in their galleries. When charges are imposed we shall know a good deal more about their operation, and we shall then certainly look at the matter again in conjunction with the museums without any binding commitment but with an open mind.
What is absolutely clear is that the museums will be able to retain the money that they get from charges as money in the hand to enable them to do a number of things that they want to do. This may well alter their attitude considerably.

Mr. Gorst: rose—

Mr. Guy Barnett: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have given way already, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett), who was a member of the Committee.

Mr. Barnett: It was I who moved the amendment on the specific point, both in Committee and on Report. When I moved it, in the speech made from the Government Front Bench by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), to whom the right hon.


Lady has referred, he gave as an argument against it that it would be very unfair as between one museum or gallery which got a very high attendance and another museum which, because it was specialist or something like that, got a very low attendance. That was the argument given to me as a conclusive one against the very thing that the right hon. Lady is proposing.

Mrs. Thatcher: I hope the hon. Member is now pleased with the new arrangements, as I am certain a number of my hon. Friends are.
Another view is that these museums and galleries which will keep the charges are clearly offering what the public want and may, therefore, have greater need of the money to do more minor works and ultimately perhaps to carry out more major works than some of the others.

Mr. Gorst: I understand fully that museums which make a charge and can keep it will in some way benefit, but will my right hon. Friend explain what happens where the cost of collection is not met and there is a shortfall? Who will pay for this?

Mrs. Thatcher: On the present arrangements we expect gross receipts of £1·2 million. There will be something off for value added tax, but because the museums and galleries are registered traders they will recollect some of the VAT from the purchase of goods and services and it is, therefore, expected to be a neutral factor. On the whole we expect museums and galleries to benefit to the extent of about £1·1 million in retained charges. The cost of collection, of staff and so on, is borne on the Department of the Environment Vote.
This debate is not about charges in isolation, nor is it about increasing the revenue by £1 million a year. It is about the future of the national museums with which my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster-General is so much concerned. He more than any other Minister has made us aware of the immense potentialities of our museums if the resources can be found. Charges will directly contribute to speeding up improvements that we all want. If we do not have the charges we cannot have the same rate of expansion and therefore—

Mr. Hamling: Rubbish.

Mrs. Thatcher: We have had a bigger rate of expansion under this Government than under any previous Government, as all my hon. Friends accept. If we do not have charges we cannot have the same rate of expansion and, therefore, we cannot serve the public by displaying our treasures as we would wish. I therefore call upon the House to reject the motion.

Mr. Strauss: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order.

Mr. Strauss: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe the right hon. Lady has sat down.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have given way so much.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Grimond.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: Whatever this debate is about, it cannot be about the future of the great national collections and museums. They cannot depend upon the sort of sum that the charges will bring in.
When I first thought about this matter I was not a passionate opponent of charges. I am aware that in many continental countries museums and galleries inflict charges and the sky does not fall. I am aware that this country spends £3,000 million a year on drink and £1,800 million on tobacco, and therefore it may be said that people have enough money to pay for visits to their galleries. But the more I have listened to the debate the stronger has grown my feeling that this is a trivial, mean and miserable charge which should be resisted.
It is, of course, the last vestige of the Tory election policy. It is a very small vestige. There have been no great demonstrations against it. Force has not been used and, therefore, the Tories have clung on to it as the last remnant of a policy which was to have killed the lame ducks and encouraged fierce private enterprise. In its present form it makes no sense because it is quite irrelevant to any general policy in the country.
The arguments used for this charge today seem to me singularly unconvincing. We are asked to believe that


£900,000 will keep going this great expansion in the amount available for the arts. That does not make mathematical sense. We are asked to believe that concertgoers will mind very much if people are admitted free to galleries. I do not believe in this picture of concert queues demanding that entrance charges should be put on the great national collections. We are asked to believe that these concessions today are made to reason and to argument. We know that they have been made to pacify the backbenchers and they have nothing to do with the reasons put forward by the Opposition.

Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the concession which was expected on the back benches, that children and old-age pensioners should be exempted from the charges, has not been made by the Government?

Mr. Grimond: I agree, and the concessions are very strange. It is said that the money will be available to the museums and galleries, but it has never been made clear whether it will be made available in addition to what would otherwise have been given. If it is in addition, it is no contribution to the burden on the Exchequer. It has no relevance to keeping down the expense of running the galleries or of contributing towards their expansion.
But there is something very mean and miserable about the charge. It may be that other countries get on perfectly well with charges and there may be charges in the Tower of London, but let us have something in this country which is free and generous. I have also been influenced by the history of this matter in Scotland. I refer to the Vaughan collection. There is no doubt that the Government would have enforced the charges all the year round every day upon the National Gallery in Scotland if that had been possible. They were tripped up over the Vaughan collection but, instead of giving way and saying that people who give their collections free to the nations should have their memory honoured not only in deed but in spirit, they are trying to get round this will. Are those who are taken to this famous cabinet of Turner pictures in the remaining 11 months to be blindfolded in case they should catch a free glimpse of the other pictures? It seems

inconceivable that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is an honourable man, should allow himself to be drawn into this subterfuge. Does he think that future donors will be encouraged to give their collections to the nation when they see how their predecessors have been dealt with?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): During the whole of January the public will have free access to the gallery. For the remaining 11 months the will states that the pictures should not be displayed.

Mr. Grimond: I am aware that they are not exposed to the sunlight but I refuse to believe that the Vaughan collection, the Torrie collection or the Maitland collection were left to the nation on the understanding, tacit or implicit, that they would not be freely available to those who wanted to see them. I ask the Secretary of State to believe that, if that is the case, the major part of the Scottish national collection, the Ellesmere pictures, will be threatened, and if they were withdrawn that would constitute a disaster. It would be a disaster if the Turners had to be sold and it may be that this may still have to happen. I ask the Government to consider, for the sake of this tiny sum of money, whether what they are doing is wise. Look at what Mr. Leggatt is saying in the papers, and he is not the only one. Do they not fear that for the sake of clinging to the remants of their old policy they may be having a disastrous effect on those who may want to make great contributions to our galleries?
I am a heretic in the matter of giving indefinite quantities of money to galleries to acquire new pictures. Some galleries are already too big. The Prado, I understand, acquires no new pictures because it has enough. Many people have raised large sums of money to buy pictures but I believe that in many cases the money would be better served preserving buildings that would otherwise be destroyed. The pictures will always be saved. The right policy in this country is, by all means, to encourage bequests. There are a great many pictures which could still be left to the nation, either to the galleries on in the great stately homes. The great Bolognese collections of pictures have so far remained in this country.
But as for new money for the galleries, I would prefer that this went to buildings to make sure that the pictures in the galleries are shown. It is something of a scandal that so many pictures are not shown. I am horrified to find in so many galleries that many of the pictures are not available to the public. I know that it is not a national collection, but the last three times I have been at the Glasgow Kelvingrove gallery—which is a magnificent gallery—the "Glasgow Boys" were not on exhibition.
I do not believe that the Government should encourage galleries to spend sums like the £1 million which was spent on "Diana and Actæon", when there are plenty of Titians in the National Gallery and pictures in the basement. I am unmoved by the arguments about research—although I quite agree that a man such as Gombrich or Denis Mahon makes a great contribution to art appreciation—about prestige or about stamp collecting to complete a set or fill a gap.

Mr. Money: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the important points which has been made by my right hon. Friend today is that the money from the authorities will in no way go towards acquisition grants but will go to something on which he has not yet touched, which is conservation and minor works, which are very important in order to show the works of art which the galleries already have?

Mr. Grimond: Yes, but I do not understand what the money is to be used for, because apparently on the one hand it is to be used at the discretion of the trustees of the gallery and on the other hand it is to go to minor works. But it is such a small sum that it is monstrous that our tradition of free access to pictures should be bedevilled by it. Of course, too, the smaller provincial galleries are the ones which would have the smallest surplus. It is the London galleries which have a substantial surplus. In the smaller galleries most of the money will be used in collecting the charge.
I know that the right hon. Lady has said that the Government will pay for collection, but this makes nonsense of the whole procedure. I understand that the intention is to take some weight off the Exchequer, but it will take no weight off the Exchequer if the whole weight of

those expenses is borne by the Exchequer. Therefore, the policy should be to ensure that the pictures are shown free, and donors should be encouraged to give their pictures, their furniture and their works of art to the nation as they have done in the past, to become the property of the nation and to be seen and enjoyed by the nation and not to be paid for. At the same time we ought to spend more money on the living arts. Our contribution to the Arts Council is minuscule. We have these marvellous collections, many of which are big enough.
Certainly, by the argument which has gone on over the years, I have been converted to the view that this is a most extraordinary move on the part of the Government which by their own showing makes no sense, it is a petty imposition, it will make no difference to the Exchequer, but it may deter certain potential donors from giving, because they will feel that future Governments may well have a different sort of fiddle and get round their wills, even if in this case the Government may have been quite ingenious. A great many people—even with a season ticket—of whom I am one, do not want to spend four or five hours at a time in an art gallery, finding that exhausting, but like to drop in to see these paintings from time to time for half an hour. There are quite a lot of poorer people who will not pay 10p for that and I have some sympathy with them.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I rise, as I have done since we first debated this matter three years ago, to say that I am opposed to museum charges. I am opposed on many grounds, on some of which I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would be giving way. I wish to mention those grounds, because if the Government find it possible to give way on them I shall find it possible to support the Government, but if they are unable to give way I shall find it impossible to support the Government.
I should like to make a small political point. There is nothing to be gained, when one is a back bencher on the Government side, from being very clever at bringing the Government down. Even if one is very much against a certain measure, if one can get the necessary concessions one can quite honourably go


into the Division Lobby with one's own party. What I shall ask for can well be given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when he makes the final speech. If I were in opposition as a Labour Member I should have no hesitation in going into the Lobby against the entire Act, and I hope that Opposition Members will understand the difference between being a back bencher in government and a back bencher in opposition, which is partly that I anticipate remaining in my position for some years.
The first ground on which I hoped that my right hon. Friend would help us is the old and the young. The major point which I should like to get over to her is that, whenever charges are made in any other country, there are exemptions for students. This year I took the trouble to go to Florence, which has 18 galleries, and Rome, which has six galleries, and watched what happened. Without exception there were two queues, one for students and one for those who paid the full amount. The students showed their students' cards and went in. It would seem easy for us in this country to do the same. That would mean that the whole group of those who fall within the educational class could get into the galleries free of charge. I had hoped that the Secretary of State for Education and Science would support us in this respect. If she makes us go into the Division Loby tonight without any support for the young, that will make it very hard to support her.
Then there are the old people. There is a group of people in this country who cannot afford certain luxuries, and there is a feeling among some of us on these benches—I have heard it from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services—that perhaps the wisest course is to give a bigger pension so that they can have more. I understand that argument, which is a philosophical argument used on this side but not on the Labour side. But at the end of the day, if the elderly have been given certain privileges all their lives, it is unpleasant to have to pay for them, especially in these times. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State for Scotland will also talk about the old people.
I was delighted, as were many of my hon. Friends, at the concession which my right hon. Friend has given us in regard to money returning to the galleries. That was a big step which we appreciate. If, however, one is totally honest and cynical, one must admit that that almost breaks down the whole purpose of the Bill and makes it slightly ridiculous, in the sense that we shall now have a charge collected, a charge delivered and a charge redelivered, which seems a pity. But it is a concession, and we accept it as such and are also most thankful.
Lord Eccles very kindly agreed that if the young came in groups, they could gain admission free of charge, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland will mention this as a reason for not letting the young in individually. If 24 are gathered together in the name of the noble Lord, they can go in free of charge.

Mr. Hamling: Eccles parties.

Mr. Archer: I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the young and the old.
My next point concerns the free day. Why can we not have a free day? If it is a Monday, the children, the old people and all the students can go in without payment that day, but there can be a charge on the other days. But to find an excuse for doubling the payment on certain days, in certain areas or in certain circumstances makes it very hard for us to believe that the free day really is free. We want just one free day a week, so that all the groups about whom we feel strongly can get in.
I ask the Government to reconsider before half-past nine. If we could have the sort of situation for which I have asked, I should find myself able to support them. That would not be a situation of being hanged, drawn and quartered, because we should have overcome the drawing and the quartering even if we still remain hanged.
I wish to make two points in favour of the Government, who are in trouble over the Bill. It would be hypocritical simply to punish the Government. One thing which we Conservative Members can be proud of is that we have upped the grant and allowances to all parts of the arts.


We can face anybody on the Labour benches on that matter.
If I have one criticism of the Opposition—I say this with great respect to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—it is this. If we had had the support of the Liberal Party on Second Reading this legislation would not be on the statute book. This has hurt many of us who have fought from the beginning and who have not recently jumped on the bandwagon. When we fought over this matter I remember that there were one or two of us in the Chamber on the right side of the fight. I remember that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) and one or two Members on this side of the House were united in the fight against the Bill. But if we had had the support of the Liberal Party the legislation would not now be an Act and it would have been quietly forgotten.
I withdraw any personal accusation against the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who was in the Division Lobby with us. My attack is not directed at him. But I repeat that this debate would never have arisen today had we had the support of the Liberals as a whole.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will give us a free day or let in the young and the old. If he does this, I shall support the Government. If he is unable to do so, they will not have the support of Members on the Conservative back benches.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am sure you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that although I am Labour Party spokesman on the arts, my natural modesty occasionally overcomes me and I retreat to the fastnesses of the back benches—and, of course, I would not wish to crowd the Opposition Front Bench.
I hope that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) will have the courage to let his vote follow his voice tonight, and I hope that some of his Conservative colleagues will follow him into the Division Lobby. We shall look at them with scant regard if that does not take place.
In an address to the Conservative Party conference at Blackpool on 8th October 1970 the Paymaster-General said:

If Parliament agreed I would be ready to charge entrance fees.
But the legislation which this House passed was not mandatory; it merely gave powers to charge to such boards of trustees as did not possess them already. It is still for this House to consider whether it approves of a policy by which all the boards are coerced by the Government, on pain of financial sanctions, into carrying out a policy of which they heartily disapprove. That is the issue in this debate.
In that same speech at Blackpool the Paymaster-General put forward a theoretical association between the proceeds of charging—the little loot this policy will raise—and the financing of capital developments for the museums. But, as with so many of the noble Lord's utterances he was incorrect: there is no connection in accountancy. All the capital works recently completed or now in progress were either begun or planned more than three years ago by our dear Jennie Lee. There is one exception: the project—I think not yet begun—to provide additional accommodation by means of mezzanine floors at the National Maritime Museum. So much for the vaunted largesse of that ineffable fellow in the other place.
From our experience of the noble Lord's devious deployment of political blackmail, it is only wise to scrutinise closely, and with a fairly jaundiced eye, the inducements apparently being extended this evening to those Tory backbenchers who have declared their intention of consigning the charges to oblivion. A last-minute bribe has been provided, and perhaps there will be more in the winding-up speech.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: We hope so.

Mr. Faulds: I am delighted to hear that the Conservative back bench hopes so.
The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science seemed to suggest in her speech today that the proceeds of charges will go to the museums. There was such a mass of verbiage in her explanation that her meaning did not quite emerge. Will the funds be genuinely at the disposal of the museum authorities? Or does it mean that the moneys will be administered indirectly by the Minister?


I suspect that these moneys will be taken into account in reducing the direct grants of the museums proportionately. We shall see—and I think I shall be proved right. That would be no concession, but would simply strengthen the potentialities for financial blackmail at the Minister's disposal.
An argument that has been repeated by the Prime Minister is the analogy which he claims to exist between the visual arts and the performing arts—between paintings on the one hand and performances of plays, ballets and music on the other. Since one pays for these, he argues, one ought to pay to view paintings in galleries and objects in museums.
The fallacies of this argument are obvious. Performers have regularly to be paid since they need the wherewithal to live, and even the Prime Minister in his remote tower in Downing Street should realise that, whereas the canvasses and objets d'art on the walls and in the display cases came into our national possession—and they are national possessions—without payment and by private munificence, dead artists "don't need no bread"! Dead artists whose pictures hang on the walls and objets d'art in museums do not have to be provided for in the sense of making a living for the people who created them.

Mrs. Thatcher: But live wardens need wages, and so do those who conserve the pictures, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Furthermore, they are in short supply and need to be paid a considerable wage.

Mr. Faulds: The Prime Minister failed to point out that fact when he made that statement. Perhaps the right hon. Lady will remind him to do so the next time he deploys that argument.
Nor is it true, as our musical Prime Minister has frequently asserted, that music is never available free. Is he contemplating reimposing licensing fees for sound radio and musical licences for our great cathedrals? We shall wait and see.
In this connection the House may derive some benefit from a letter which I have received from a concerned correspondent in terms of the Prime Minister's musical interest. He writes:
Dear Mr. Faulds, I am writing to you as the spearhead of Labour's attack on the museum charges."—

It is very nice to be recognised—
I enclose for reference an interview with Mr. Heath. In this cutting he asserts that 'As a musician I never got anything for nothing.' I wonder next time there is a debate it might be worthwhile reminding him that for four years he was a leading participant in the Balliol College Musical Society whose principle is that all concerts given by the Society shall be free to all members of the University? The Society is supported entirely by financial contribution by members of the college. The concerts are still free to college members who do not subscribe anything. For four years Mr. Heath supported this system and himself enjoyed, free, a series of first-rate professional concerts. He performed there himself and assisted in getting Mr. Yehudi Menuhin to play there on the occasion of Balliol's 800th centenary.
The gentleman signs himself "Sincerely, Geoffrey Bush"—thank you, Mr. Bush! How sad it is that these civilised activities of his youth should have to be cited in refutation of the flabby arguments the Prime Minister now inflates in his maturity.
Again the Prime Minister, citing the splendid Chinese relics at the Royal Academy, has appeared to claim that the public is capable of appreciating only what it pays for. But he does not understand that such a unique opportunity to see the cultural treasures of another country is not pertinent to museum-going on the every-day occasion. Attendances at museums are clearly affected by charging to a damaging extent. The right hon. Lady, although she did not quote from the report, knows well that the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries has reported falls in attendances in Scotland and Wales. It blames the decline on public supposition that charges had already started. Falling attendances at the National Gallery in London were strikingly reversed during a month last year—I think it was September—when a huge placard stating that admission was free was placed outside the gallery.
Further evidence is offered in the September bulletin of the Museums Association in which it is stated that—
a dramatic improvement in the visitor totals of the museums concerned
followed the abandonment of entry charges at your municipal museums in Edinburgh. The report says that the figures were supplied to the Paymaster's Office at its request. Presumably those telling statistics, which were a bit inconvenient, were quickly pigeon-holed


and forgotten and were not drawn out for the right hon. Lady's speech.
Have the Government realised the effect of their policy on future benefactions? Their intended tinkering with the will of Henry Vaughan was averted only by a flood of protests from Members of both Houses and the certainty of defeat on the issue.
There are—and I spell this out to the Government—there are collectors who are devoted to the arts and to this country who would wish to make their contributions to enrich the national museums, but who are repelled by the total insensitivity of the Minister for the Arts and by the Prime Minister's lofty disdain for the views of those knowledgeable in these matters, collectors and trustees alike.
Contrary to what was wrongly assumed when this long-drawn out lunacy was launched, the whole museum world has made clear its outright hostility. Only yesterday, the boards of two museums in Belfast and Edinburgh stated yet again their wholehearted opposition. The House must know it to be true—it cannot pretend that this is not so—that the charges are being forced upon the museums and art gallery trustees totally against their declared wishes.
We all know that, sadly, politicians are looked upon these days with scant regard. They can be whipped into support or opposition Lobbies at the will of Government or Opposition. What an opportunity this occasion presents to Parliament to assert its right not to be dragooned but to say its mind. I suspect that quite a little tremor of surprise would course throughout the country that on an issue such as this, where the Government are intent on riding roughshod over all informed opinion, hon. Members actually had the guts to get up and say "We have had enough of all this twisting and turning and nonsense on this policy." Public esteem for the parliamentary process would be enhanced and hon. Members might walk the streets of their constituencies with their eyes less frequently averted.
The House has an opportunity tonight which it should not pass up, and some of the great ghosts which hang about the place might nod their approval of the reassertion of a Member's right to an occasional independent decision.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) was perhaps not at his best, he being half-way between the Opposition back benches and the Opposition Front Bench. I did not hear anything very new in what he said, except that he gave us a few new insults directed at my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster-General. There is nothing new in that.
There is a group of people on the Left inside the House and outside who condemn out of hand whatever is done by a Tory Government or a Tory Minister. I do not object to a fierce debate on matters of art. Art is a good thing about which to have a flaming row. It is harmless so to do unless we damage the arts that we seek to enhance. I am told that it was Lord Melbourne who said "God help Governments that meddle in art." Lord Melbourne must have cribbed something much stronger that the Duke of Wellington said sometime before. However, we get the message—namely, that whatever we strive to do, there will be plenty of criticism.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) identifies himself with a small but influential section who care about the arts. He has accused us of euphoria and folly following the General Election of 1970. I think he should look back a bit to the arts White Paper of 1965 which was produced by Jennie Lee, God bless her! It will be seen from the White Paper that art to the Labour Party is a social service. I think it said that art was a social service which should not be starved of resources.
I think I carry my hon. Friends with me when I say that I look upon art in a rather different light. As I understand it, my right hon and noble Friend believes that art is not just a spectator sport and that there should be partnership and real participation.
We heard about this voceriferous, influential section who care about the arts. It has been suggested by them that the trustees of all our great national institutions are unanimously against the charges. I doubt that. I can tell the House that between 1964 and 1970, when we were out of office, some of us sought to discover what future policy in this area


might be. We found that rather more than half of the directors of the institutions being argued about today were in favour of charges for a number of reareasons. One reason had to do with control of crowds. It was said that it would mean that booked parties could be sure of seeing exhibits to the best possible advantage because free for all means that none can benefit from or enjoy collections in a proper fashion.
The Front Benches have quoted statistics of one kind or another. There is a mass of them. I would like to give a brief example from personal experience. I do not think anyone would disagree that the finest art gallery and museum complex in the world is the whole series of historic houses in this country, most in private hands, which attract millions of visitors a year. No one has seriously suggested that these should be taken over by the State and run at vast cost with free admission.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Not yet.

Mr. Cooke: The modest entrance charges are not complained about and the visitors are a true cross-section of the community. They have a real sense of pride in helping to keep the houses and the collections inside them, making them accessible to a wider public. The most telling thing that one of the visitors who came to my house recently said to me was that he came in a Communist and went out a Conservative. Hon. Members may laugh. I must make it clear that the object of the exercise is not to convert Communists to Conservatives or even Socialists to Conservatives. This man meant that he went in thinking "Here is something I want to destroy," and came out feeling that he was part of a partnership to keep these things going.
The same sense of partnership exists between those who pay to enter publicly-owned institutions and who, by doing so, support the museum or gallery. I am sure that some of the insufficiencies we see in our museums and galleries would never be tolerated if people were paying to come in. I know of a North Country gallery which spent £30,000 on a new picture, where water pours through the roof within a few feet of this latest

acquisition. If people paid to go in they would not stand it for a moment.
It is not true that charges will deter future gifts—not in my experience. As the owner of probably the finest keyboard instrument still in private hands, a Kirckman harpsichord made for Queen Charlotte in 1761, I would be far more inclined, if I had to give it away, to give it to a viable institution where the public would be paying for its upkeep than to see it at the mercy of some capricious trustees who might destroy it, albeit accidentally, by damp or overheating. The financial provisions which the Government have introduced will also greatly encourage those who want to leave their collections to our institutions.
Towards the end of the debate there will no doubt be introduced this question of legal muddle, and I agree it is, over Henry Vaughan's will. If someone wants to bring a case against the Government for allegedly doing wrong with Henry Vaughan's will, let them do so and test it in the courts. I do not believe that the Vaughan will is a sacred document and I do not believe that the Government are tampering with it. In any case, what about the £5,000 he left to the Middlesex Hospital and another hospital which was confiscated among the hospital endowments when the National Health Service was started?
The Vaughan will, we are told by some, is sacred. But are all wills sacred? I am a trustee of a charity in the village of Puddletown, in Dorset, which was left to the community to provide bibles and a decent shroud on burial for the poor of the parish. Are we bound by that will today? Of course not. We give coal and clothing at Christmas time to the old—and make sure that by doing so we do not let them lose any of their State benefit. How far back are we to go? Are the lives of the living to be ruled by the wishes of those long dead? How do we know that Henry Vaughan would adhere today to what he wrote a century ago? He was a liberal-minded and generous patron of art and science and loved humanity and in his will remembered all those who had served him in his life. He might well say today that his money should be spent to encourage living artists.

Mr. Gorst: If we are not to be ruled by the views of the dead—and there


may well be an argument in favour of that—at least we should take account of the fact that some of those who are still alive may not wish to bequeath what they own to the nation in the present circumstances.

Mr. Cooke: We have had that argument before. I made it clear that, as one of those possibly affected, it would not make any difference to me, and I do not believe that it would make a difference to very many people. Some of those who oppose us so strongly seem to think that all good art belongs to the past and can be understood only by a select coterie of informed people. I believe that the Government have made a great beginning in breaking out from this outdated approach. When one looks at what the regional arts associations are doing and at the Arts Council's change of emphasis and interest in the more popular forms of art. I think it all means that the public will have wider participation and not be spoon fed, which is what the Opposition's policy meant when they were in Government.
I think that the Opposition might be pleased to adopt a phrase I thought of recently—that it is the people who participate now who are the patrons. We are the patrons now. That should be the catch-phrase. There are those who will complain still that not enough is being done. Let them not forget that for every one person who may display a passing interest in a Titian there are 100 more concerned about producing pristine plumbing, in primary schools, and that Government money for the arts is always going to be a battle in competition with other more immediate public demands.
I believe that my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster-General has driven a hard and good bargain with the Treasury and that it has enabled him to finance many under-financed commitments left to him by his predecessor, the noble Lady Baroness Lee, who was full of enthusiasm but did not provide the money. He is making great progress in bringing the arts to a wider public. I wish the Government all success, also, in a new sector which I hope they will tackle soon. This is television, whereby, if the trade unions will let us, immense benefit can come to the arts.
It is small wonder that we are poor relations if we make no effort to help to pay

our way, and I caution certain hon. Friends of mine—some of them sitting close to me—that if they spend their lives sniping unsympathetically at the Government they are not likely to make much progress. I believe that we should all unite in support of what I believe to be a fine effort on the part of the Government.
I am sorry if the conversation from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) behind me has caused me to say something he did not understand. I want to complete my case by dealing with him if he will give me his attention for a moment. He is complaining about what the Government are doing today by imposing charges on entering museums. I wonder how he reconciles that with the suggestion he is putting forward that public libraries should now be empowered to charge people who borrow books so that starving authors should receive some extra reward for their work.

Mr. Money: I do not know whom my hon. Friend has been talking to or how he knows more about the Bill I propose to bring in than I do, since neither the sponsors of the Bill nor I have yet decided its terms. But I assure him that one thing that is not there—and it is an all-party Bill—is any concept that any charge will be levied on any member of the public at all, even though it might please my hon. Friend if there were.

Mr. Cooke: It would not please me at all if there were. But someone will have to pay more if there is to be a charge for lending.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has put me right. I would not have taken so long to put forward my views if he had not been conversing so loudly behind me.
The conclusion must be that those of us who care about the arts are few enough in number in a busy political life. Instead of disagreeing with and sniping at Governments who do their best to cope, if we could all combine there is no limit to what we would achieve. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to combine in order to improve the prospects for the arts and not to damage them in the way in which they could be damaged tonight.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. James Boyden: The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) must know that there are scores of ancient monuments and similar buildings in the care of the Department of the Environment which are open entirely free and that where charges are levied, at places like Hampton Court and the Tower, it is purely for historic reasons. When I was at the Ministry of Public Building and Works it was my ambition that these, too, would ultimately be free, and certainly when I was a Minister charges were kept low as part of the contribution to persuading people to be more interested in our cultural heritage.
The Secretary of State used some extraordinary arguments to support her case. Take, for example, her argument about charging preventing overcrowding. That is an entirely élitist argument: those who can afford to pay will be able to see and those who cannot will be kept out. If overcrowding is a problem the answer is simple: either extend the hours or put up a notice saying "Full".

Mrs. Thatcher: I did not mention overcrowding.

Mr. Boyden: The right hon. Lady said that one reason for putting on charges was that some of the museums and art galleries were overcrowded.

Mrs. Thatcher: With respect, I think that perhaps it was another hon. Member who mentioned that in an intervention.

Mr. Boyden: I see no reason to attribute the remark to the right hon. Lady unless I heard her say it. We shall see whether I am right when HANSARD is published tomorrow.
I let that go. The right hon. Lady makes an equally extraordinary argument about charging in relation to her general philosophy. She seems proud of expenditure which the Government have made in encouraging the development of the public's attendance at art galleries and museums. In the same breath she proposes these charges which are a barrier against the very people whom her Department and Opposition Members wish to encourage to go to art galleries and museums. I have in mind those who have only a marginal interest in art. It is very difficult to encourage working people to be interested in the arts, and barriers of

this kind interfere with the development of an educational philosophy and policy in this respect.
Let me tell the right hon. Lady about the Bowes Museum at Barnard Castle. I was treasurer of that museum at the time that it was going bankrupt. I had two roles. I had to persuade the trustees to go into liquidation and to hand over the museum to the county council, and I had to persuade the Durham County Council to take over the museum.
It was my intention and that of the county council that there would be no charge for admission to the Bowes Museum. Owing to legal difficulties over the trust deed and the taking over, a small charge was levied, and continues to be levied.
The point I wish to make against the right hon. Lady is that the charge has had nothing to do with the development of interest in the museum. It is because the policy of the county council and successive curators has been to encourage people to go to the museum, by advertising, improving the displays, spending a great deal of money on the museum—a whole host of things—that the museum has been revitalised, and has in the course of years set going three other museums. The Durham Light Infantry museum in Aykley Heads, the museum at Beamish and the Schools Museum Service all spring from those early days when the county council took over the bankrupt museum.
Although there was a small charge and the figures have gone up continuously, the charge is irrelevant. The figures have gone up because of the county council's education policy and its determination to attract the very people I wanted always to go to the best museums, and still want to go to the national galleries, those who have not much interest in museums in the first place, whom one must encourage to go there. It is part of the other side of adult education. I am pleased that the Russell Report refers in paragraph 126 to the value of museums, although in rather lukewarm terms.
A major point that the Government do not seem to understand is that all museums have two major duties. One is to conserve, which is relatively easy, because all curators are trained in conservation and that is their primary aim. The


other is to encourage a popular interest in museums, something the Soviet Union does very well. That is the most difficult task of all. The curators are often less interested in it, and need a great deal of public pressure and encouragement from the powers-that-be.
Years ago I was interested in that aspect when I was Chairman of the National Institute for Adult Education. We formed a working party on museums and adult education, which made difficult progress. The conservationists always came out on top. I shall not be surprised if the extra £1 million which the right hon. Lady hopes to have will go on conservation, on cleaning the pictures, rather than on doing what I urge, which is as important a central theme in our national museums and galleries as anything else.
The charges are a tremendous obstacle to getting that kind of interest going. The right hon. Lady will, by these petty-fogging charges, spoil the efforts which she claims, with reasonable justice, to be making to spend more Government money on the museums.
There is another reason why the time is particularly inopportune. The right hon. Lady knows that 1975 is the Council of Europe's Architectural Heritage Year. Europa Nostra and the Council of Europe are making tremendous efforts to interest the general public in the conservation of our historic towns, town centres, buildings and so on. Nothing could be more damaging to those efforts than the Government's move. It is the beginning of a slippery slope towards putting up the bars against the public in many ways. Salisbury Cathedral is now charging. I shall not be surprised if before very long the charge-minded people put barbed wire around Grasmere and charge people to look at it.
Free admission is a simple Socialist concept. We believe in the arts and many other things being social services. If they are free, that encourages a great development among the people, among children, among the very sort of people in whom one should be taking a special interest. The Government are putting back the clock for no worthwhile amount of money, resulting in the development of a petty bureaucracy at the gates of museums and damage to what should be

a progressive movement forward of encouraging young people, old people, all those who are only faintly interested in museums and art, to come freely into our art galleries and museums. I should like to see our historic monuments under the Department of the Environment free.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) was right to stress the ideological undertones of the debate. I shall come back to that point towards the end of what will be a brief speech. Equally, I thought that in referring to the Bowes Museum, whose returns prospered and flourished despite the imposition of charges, he chose a bad example in support of his argument. Despite there not being a top-rate collection there, despite the fact that it is not being added to and nothing is growing and despite charges, it is possible to increase attendance enormously.
I do not believe that charges are important in considering the numbers of people who will visit a gallery or museum. It is the excellence and quality of exhibits that bring in the large numbers. The figures of attendance at historic houses and foreign galleries show that it is the quality of the exhibits, the publicity, and the arrangements for visitors that attract the numbers. I do not believe that charges will put people off visiting museums and galleries.
I get slightly irritated, after going to Paris and other foreign capitals and having to pay large sums of money to visit the Louvre and other galleries, to find on returning to this country that I have to pay taxes to subsidise galleries and museums to enable the French, the Spaniards and the Italians to visit them free of charge.
I do not want to talk so much about the pros and cons of these charges as to draw a lesson from the troubles in our economic life. It is absurd to suggest that £1 million is in any sense a contribution to inflation. The Government seek to overspend £4,400 million this year. Incidentally, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) was wrong in suggesting that taking £1 million from the public to visit our galleries was inflationary. It is deflationary, because the public have £1 million less to spend on other things.


But, leaving that aside, it is absurd to be critical about spending £1 million when the Government are already spending £4,400 million too much.
It might be instructive to treat it as a microcosm of our problem, to turn the argument on its head, because, small as £1 million is in this context, I have observed the fight that the Labour Party and several of my hon. Friends have waged relentlessly for three years to try to stop the Government taking £1 million from the public to pay for a service. Rather, I would criticise the Government for taking so little. If the service is costing £23 million, why take only £1 million to pay for it?
This lobby by the trustees and administrators of our galleries and museums, backed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, has been mounted because they cannot lose. Nobody will criticise them for taking a stand and fighting to the last ditch to save charges being imposed upon museums. The public are probably bored by the whole debate. They do not mind paying 10p to enter a museum. But there might be a little spurious glory, publicity, or popularity to be gained by taking up a cause of this kind and flogging it again and again.
The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) treated this whole matter as a great parliamentary crusade—

Mr. Faulds: As it is.

Mr. Ridley: —as though, if this House were to defeat the Government, it would be a victory for Parliament.

Mr. Faulds: It would.

Mr. Ridley: If the House were to defeat the Government on not spending so much money it might be a contribution to the respect in which Parliament is held, but if the Opposition and my hon. Friends are going to join in attacking the Government for trying to save such a small sum of money, as they would, what shall we do when we come to the big sums of money? What shall we do when the real sacrifices have to be made, as they will have to be?
If in this paltry case involving £1 million those who are opposing the Government are prepared to push their wounded pride, their desire to be elevated by the

people, their fear of not being thought to be standing four-square for the arts by insisting that somebody else should pay, heaven knows how we shall prune the excessive growth of the expectations that the Government will finance everything. I therefore oppose the motion and hope that my right hon. Friend will have the courage to increase museum charges and extend them to many other forms of activity.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: The Government's tenacity in clinging to museum charges is the last-ditch stand of Selsdon man, personified by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). It is the Prime Minister who, as a matter of prestige, has been clinging to the vestigal remnants of a policy of not helping lame ducks or others who are disadvantaged. It is he who is fighting to the last to preserve these charges.
Although the original Selsdon programmes have been whittled away by the logic of circumstances, the Prime Minister and Lord Eccles still hold on to the assumption that by charging 10p for entrance to museums they will somehow or other elevate the moral tone of the nation and make it more self-reliant. But it is clear that if these charges are finally brought into effect the result will be to create a kind of cultural apartheid, separating those who can pay from those who have to remain outside the turnstiles.
It is a curious fact that the Prime Minister, who has spoken with such burning faith about the quality of life, as he did at the time of the election, should be so totally dogmatic and obstinate in defending a measure which places barriers on the free access to the nation's cultural heritage and which will undoubtedly have the effect of injuring the very quality of life which he professes to uphold.
Let the Prime Minister look at the crowds of young people thronging the National Gallery, the Tate and the Victoria and Albert Museum. Let him consider what would happen if those young men and women were prevented and discouraged by the 10p turnstile from enjoying these treasures which, after all, do not belong to the Government of the day


but are heirlooms of the nation, bequeathed by generations of public-spirited men whose aim it was precisely to raise the quality of life.
This is a reactionary measure in the most literal sense, and the case for it was put extremely well in its most naked and reactionary form by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. It is reactionary in the sense that the reformers of the nineteenth century, men of enlightenment, including many Tory reformers, such as Lord Ashley, were concerned with making the culture of the nation and the treasures of its past more and more accessible to more and more people. They opposed taxes on learning and on newspapers. They opened up the way to free education and free libraries. They took the view that education open to all would eventually create a finer and more enlightened Britain. But apart from that they also took the view that the civilising influence of free access to museums and galleries would benefit the whole nation.
The sum in question is a paltry £1 million. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury did not put it in perspective. It is½ per cent. of national public expenditure. The Government have debased themselves by preparing to put up turnstiles from 1st January and thus prevent so many young people from visiting the nation's treasures.
I should be the last to accuse the Prime Minister or Lord Eccles of philistinism. Everyone knows of the Prime Minister's great interest in music. He has lately shown an interest in painting; he has recently redecorated No. 10 Downing Street. Lord Eccles is a distinguished book collector and has a discriminating collection of paintings. His general approach has been that of an eighteenth century amateur of the arts.
But how paradoxical it is that both the Prime Minister and Lord Eccles should be so inflexible in the face of the approaches not only of my hon. Friends but also of enlightened Tories, who I hope will join us in the Lobby tonight. How strange that the Prime Minister should be so obtuse in the face of the protests of museum trustees, of whom the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I am sorry to say, takes

such a low view. It is a view which, in my experience and that of most hon. Members, is totally unjustified.
How insensitive of the Government to be deaf to the protests of lawyers and laymen alike who are deeply disturbed by the new principle that the Government have introduced of undoing the provisions of wills without the consent even of the families involved.
I am not surprised that the right hon. Lady has been put up to give the case for charges. I found her argument complicated. The only clear line that I could detect was that the higher the charges, the greater the numbers who would want to visit the museums. Her argument carried no conviction with me. Her illustrations were of specialised types of museums which would obviously attract people concerned with their specialised activities, such as folk museums. I am more persuaded by the argument of my hon. Friends that it is precisely because the impression was created that the charges had already been introduced that the entrance figures for general museums began to fall.
This measure is the last in a trilogy of Ms—milk, meals and now museums—all embraced by the greater Ms of the meanness of this Government towards those who are disadvantaged. They are a Government who have successfully divided the nation.
The right hon. Lady gave some hints about exemptions which reminded me of the phase 3 complexity of potential exceptions. Under the right hon. Lady's dispensation, we shall see queuing up outside the galleries old-age pensioners brandishing their social security cards, schoolboys with their birth certificates, the disabled with their doctors' letters and students with their student union cards.
I hope that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) will not take much comfort from the Secretary of State's suggestion that students might be exempt. After all, what is a student? Is he someone registered at a university, polytechnic or college? What about all those young shop and factory workers who are essentially students in that they want to go into museums to educate themselves? Are they to be excluded while those who simply have the formal


label of "student" are to be admitted free of charge?

Mr. Money: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a free day would cover precisely the category about which he is talking?

Mr. Edelman: I have consistently been opposed to the idea of a free day, not because I am unwilling to see a day when people can have free entrance but because, once again, a free day would represent the divisiveness which the Government have introduced into the nation. A free day would mean that on one day of the week a whole lot of people would be herded together in conditions which would not give them adequate opportunity to see the objects they went to see, while on the other days those who were better fortuned would have the opportunity of doing so at their leisure. I oppose the free day because it would create a kind of ghetto for those who have not the means to pay for admission to the gallery, and it would frustrate the objects that I am trying to uphold.
I can tell the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that he and the Government have grossly underestimated the public indignation in this matter. It would be a mistake to imagine that the concern is felt merely by a few academics, a few museum curators and a few who are concerned with the arts. The indignation is widespread. Throughout the country millions of people have come to know something of the arts because of the impact of television and even of the glossy supplements to the Sunday newspapers. People have become interested in the arts. One has only to visit the galleries to see that.

Mr. Ridley: If people can afford Sunday newspapers and television, surely they can afford the odd 10p to visit a museum. Indeed, they might be wiser to go to the museum than to obtain the Sunday newspapers.

Mr. Edelman: That is a pretentious assumption. In the arithmetic of ordinary people, it is a matter of making certain choices.
I am arguing that there should be this freedom of accessibility, as there has

been historically. I want to see it preserved. Sometimes hon. Members who are in favour of museum charges call in aid exceptions, such as the superb Chinese exhibition. They ask why, if people are prepared to pay to see such exhibitions, they should not pay in order to enter national museums. I can only say that when one has a specially mounted exhibition such as the Chinese exhibition, people are prepared to make almost a once-for-all sacrifice in order to see it. What we on the Opposition side of the House are talking about is the basic fact that museums, which are really the possession of the nation, should be free and accessible to all. They are the formative treasures of the past which are a legacy to the whole nation. Therefore, anything which acts as a barrier ought to be resisted.
Of the shameful measures that the present Government have introduced, this is the most shameful because it is an attack on the quality of life. It is an attack on half the nation, who will have to pay a tax on knowledge as a result of the Government's impositions. It is regressive because its underlying assumption is that cultural education is something to be based on privilege. What a curious thing it is that the present Government, which allow property speculators to go scot-free and tax-free, should now insist on imposing this tax.
I know that some hon. Members on the Government side of the House will feel a deep sense of shame at the sight of the turnstiles which are already being erected in our museums and galleries. I hope that those who feel that sense of shame will prove the sincerity of their conscience by coming into the Lobby with us tonight. I am sure they realise that a good conscience is far better than a pat on the back from the Whips. I hope they will join us in the Lobby in order to make the turnstiles obsolete before the first one turns. I can assure them, particularly the hon. Member for Louth, that if tonight they join us in breaking down the barriers to the whole nation's enjoyment of our cultural heritage they will deserve well not only of their constituents but of posterity.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Ernle Money: It was that able, agreeable and idle Prime


Minister, Lord Melbourne, who once said,
God help the Government that meddles with art.
Listening to some of the deliberations of the House this evening I felt that were his presence here among the various other presences which have been evoked he would have been unlikely to have expressed a different opinion.
It has been a constructive debate in many ways, and an interesting one, although we have been startled by some of the suggestions, notably from my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who seemed determined to squeeze the last pip, as it were, from the cultural orange. I dread to think what would happen if he eventually got on to the capital value of the works. No doubt the Bowes Museum would be compelled to flog off its El Greco, its St. Peter Repentant and its great Goya in the interests of the Durham County Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) made a somewhat puzzling speech and suggested that the best way of showing an identification with the arts was to adopt a mole-like support of the administration in all circumstances.
But two speeches above all have been of great interest. The speech of the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) was one. Whether he speaks from self-imposed banishment at the far end of the Opposition Back Bench or from his proper place on the Opposition Front Bench, he manages to express the deep concern which has been felt by large numbers of people who are passionately concerned with the quality of life, as was the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman).
Many people have expressed a real worry about the implications of the Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) was the first person on the Government benches to point out some of the risks, and he has been unmitigating and consistent throughout in the line he has taken.
We have welcomed, and taken great encouragement from, some of the concessions which the Government have been able to give us. We have taken a great deal of comfort from the fact that

in recent weeks my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has shown that it was not the intention of this Government to deviate from normal Conservative practice by interferring retrospectively with other people's wills. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was his intention."] It is not now.
We have taken a great deal of comfort from the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, who this evening has made it clear that the money raised by these charges is to remain with the museums. I am sorry that, although she spelt out quite clearly the purposes for which this money should be utilised, the major concession some of us have been pressing for that the money should be spent in the interests of the museum service itself has not been made. I remember addressing myself on Second Reading specifically to this point. We should not treat the money as a form of fiscal levy. But the fact that the money is to remain with the museums is a major triumph for those who have been deeply concerned about the fact that this money might simply be raised as a general addendum to the national finances.
However, we have had no firm undertaking about the free day. One accepts that the approach of the hon. Member for Coventry, North was basically ideological, but many of us on this side hope sincerely that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to say something about the arguments deployed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by others of my right hon. Friends. I hope that we shall be doing the same as the other great museums of Europe—the Prada, the Louvre, the Uffizi and the museums of Athens—which have a non-subsidised free day. One of the saddest parts of my right hon. Friend's speech, when she mentioned the various forms of agreement which had been made with the trustees of the museums, was when she said that the free day at the Tate Gallery would be subsidised out of that gallery's own resources.
It is not too late for the Government to give us this concession. When my right hon. Friend said that the Government have not closed their minds and that this is a matter on which they are prepared to accept further argument and to


consider at further length, that was a good step forward. But those of us who have felt grave anxiety about this aspect hope that perhaps tonight, but certainly on some other occasion, that concession will be made explicit. I do not think one can say more tonight on that issue, and to sum up the anxiety of some of us—

Mr. Faulds: Say it with your vote.

Mr. Money: With great respect to the hon. Member for Smethwick, I am not surprised that he now walks about Smethwick with his eyes downcast, as he said earlier, considering the policies of his party.

Mr. Faulds: You have got my words wrong, mate.

Mr. Money: If I may return from badinage with the hon. Gentleman to addressing my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench as seriously and earnestly as I can, it will be of the greatest comfort to those who are interested in the arts if this concession, which would cost only £60,000 and which would meet very many of the reservations about the old and the young, can be made. To take the example of Ulster, about which we have heard so little tonight, it will mean that the great Gerona treasure will be available to those who subscribed for it, and some of us will feel very much happier than we feel at the moment.
This is an anxious moment, because, although this issue has become a subject for party involvement, whether it be the fundamentalist expression of loyalty or the real concern of some of us, it is not our habit to vote against an administration in which we have great confidence. None the less, on this one facet the Government have gone a long way by making concessions. For this we thank them. But we hope that they can give us this other matter which would extend our confidence in them.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) asked the Government for concessions, which, of course, he is entitled to do. But those of us who have been concerned with this legislation ever since it was introduced know that it is unlikely that the hon. Gentleman will get concessions from

the Government which will cost any money.
The reason is that the cost of collecting the money at the turnstile is so enormous in comparison with the amount likely to be gained that the Government are unwilling to make concessions even of sums like £60,000, because to do so would make a mockery of the legislation. It also is a crazy system when legislation has been passed which will mean that in a museum in my constituency the cost of collection will be 39 per cent. of the total amount collected. That in itself is crazy. But the concessions would make this proposal even madder than it already seems to many of us.
There is a concession that I should like to ask from the Government. I know that I shall not get it, because a recent parliamentary answer indicated that it would cost £150,000. However, I should like to see it made possible for all children to enter museums free. I say this as somebody who was an education officer in a museum and as somebody who was a teacher. I regard the museums, as long as they are free, as being an important part of our informal system of education. I know that school visits take place and are admirable, and I know that the Government have already made a concession in that respect, and that is tine. As a former teacher and museum education officer, however, I could judge the success or otherwise of my work by the number of children who came back to the institution on their own to see the things they had been shown there by their teachers and by the museum education officers. That seems to be a reason for opposing this legislation.
The value of museums as part of our informal system of education lies in encouraging and enlightening people who otherwise might never be interested in art or in artefacts throughout the whole of their lives. I remember some months ago a moving speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) in which he cited a friend of his who became interested in pictures because he went into a gallery to keep warm. That was how it began. It ended with that same man holding a fairly senior position as a teacher of art. That kind of story is significant in these matters. This applies to children, to adults and particularly to pensioners who need to have


opportunities to develop new interests when their working lives are over. I see this as a thoroughly regressive form of legislation.
We are all rightly sensitive about interference with the way in which educational institutions are run. It is no accident that Section 2(3) of the National Maritime Museum Act 1934 states that the board shall have power to
make such regulations as they think necessary for securing the due administration of the Museum and preserving the objects collected therein, including regulations requiring payment to be made for admission to the Museum".
That again makes it the responsibility of the trustees, and rightly so. It is very poor that the Government should interfere to that degree in any decisions which should be the responsibility of the trustees running the museums, and not the responsibility of Government. I deplore such Government interference in other educational institutions.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: We are coming, as many hon. Members have observed, to the end of one stage of the debate which has now been going on for three years. Tonight there have been rehearsed some of the arguments with which many people have been familiar for many years.
I want to take the House back to one of the arguments which has not figured so generally in the debate, although it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) and by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—namely, the interference with bequests and the effect on future benefactions. Apart from the general objection to the principle of admission charges, there has been the important issue of interference with the conditions of gifts of works of art, particularly to the Scottish galleries, and the effect that such interference may have on future benefactions to the nation.
The Government have had to desist from interfering with Henry Vaughan's will, which governs the Turner collection in the National Gallery of Scotland, although they took powers to do so and attempted to exercise them. In a final concession made only yesterday, for such is the way the matter has been handled—or bungled—the Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed that he would honour

that part of Henry Vaughan's will which stipulates that access to the pictures in Edinburgh should be on the same conditions as at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. We know that the conditions are that members of the public wishing to seek access to the pictures—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The point about this matter being raised in reply to a Question yesterday is that the matter only came up during the past few weeks because of a different interpretation of the will. That is the only reason for the matter not coming up until recently.

Mr. Smith: This matter has been around for three years. The Secretary of State knows well that there has been trench warfare over the will and he has evacuated every position he has occupied. He has evacuated the position that he would interfere with the will, which he attempted to do. When I and others put to him the point about similar conditions applying to Edinburgh as applied to the Fitzwilliam Museum, he gave in again and refused to go to the courts to have the matter authoritatively decided. He has conceded on that. Some pictures are to be shown free at the National Gallery of Scotland and others are not. I do not know how the people who wish to see the Turners, which are kept in the print room in the rear of the National Gallery, will be conducted in their passage through the gallery to see the pictures. Will they be blindfolded? Will the special guides take them through the gallery, telling them not to look to the right or left until they reach the room where the Turners are kept?
Surely the point is that the Government have taken powers very reluctantly to honour the conditions of the will. I am not sure that the trustees can honour them now. What if somebody who seeks access to the Turners is refused by an attendant who does not properly understand the procedure? There is a danger then that residual legatees who have threatened legal action against the trustees may get the pictures.
There is also the position of the Erskine of Torrie collection which is still unresolved. The Government have climbed down from trying to alter the agreement of 1845. It is their hope that the trustees will agree to alter it. If they do not, will


these pictures also be lost to the National Gallery of Scotland?
Further, the Government still have an order, which I hope will come before Parliament, seeking to alter a Treasury minute of 1858 which guarantees free access to the National Museum of Antiquities, whose collection was originally gifted by the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland on condition of free access. They are seeking to alter an Act of 1855 which gives statutory force to a condition of free access on certain days of the week which was proposed by Edinburgh Town Council as patron of the university when it gifted a collection to the forerunner of the museum. The two gifts were not protected in testamentary form but the principle is the same. The conditions of gifts are to be broken by the Government. The concern of many hon. Members has not only been the interference with gifts and conditions solemnly made when given but the effect on future benefactions to the nation.
I can briefly express the debt which the nation owes to the benefactors of the past when I say that benefactions make up two-thirds of the collection of the National Gallery in England and three-quarters of the Tate Gallery and constitute the entire Wallace Collection, which alone is worth over £200 million. The position we have now reached is that if any benefactor in future wishes to leave any substantial work of art to the nation and says, as many benefactors have done in the past, that he wishes it to be available to the whole nation free of charge, the trustees will have to decline the bequest because they cannot honour that condition while the Government impose museum charges upon them.
When we think of the possible cost of this to the nation, how paltry the sum of £900,000 a year becomes. The concessions made by the Government do not amount to that much. They were granted under the pain of defeat. It is significant that they were not made during the lengthy consideration of this matter in Committee, upon mature reflection and after measured argument. They were made because of fear that the Government would lose the Division tonight. They do not alter this grave and fundamental point about the benefactions.
If I had any doubt, if hon. Members doubted whether this was an important point, I refer them to what was said by Professor Francis Haskell, Professor of the History of Art at the University of Oxford, in a letter to The Times on 25th October. He said:
Before casting their votes it is greatly to be hoped that Members of both Houses and all parties will recognise the rôle played by past benefactors in the enrichment of our museums and galleries and appreciate the deterrent effect that compulsory entrance charges may well have on certain future benefactors.
I do not think I could ask for a better supporting authority.
I turn briefly to the question of the Scottish galleries for which the Secretary of State for Scotland has ministerial responsibility. It is with the Scottish galleries that we see the reduction to absurdity of some of the propositions which the Government have put forward. As hon. Members will appreciate, the attendances at these galleries tend to be lower than the attendances at the major galleries in the City of London. We are told that the amount to be collected for the art galleries in Scotland is about £36,000. If we add in the Royal Scottish Museum, which is of a slightly different character, it would go up to £60,000. Over the whole the cost of collection is over 20 per cent.
For the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, which as many hon. Members will know is situated in the Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, a beautiful gallery in a beautiful house and setting, the amount to be collected is only £5,000. The cost of collection expressed as a proportion of that is 27 per cent. For the Scottish National Portrait Gallery and the National Museum of Antiquities, taken together because they have the same entrance, the cost of collection is 45 per cent. What madness it is to be taking money from people at a door, imposing a deterrent effect upon their entering galleries and then taking 45 per cent. of what is collected to pay those who collect it.
Another feature of this whole operation has been the method in which it has been carried out. Instead of the Government coming here with a Bill saying that charges had to be made in museums and galleries, they have taken another route They have said that they would remove what they regard as the legal inhibitions


to the trustees making charges. Then they have applied a financial sanction to the trustees. Our trustees are on the whole—I think the nation owes them a great debt—men of integrity and knowledge who have served our national institutions well. They find it demeaning to have this sort of financial sanction put upon them by the Government to achieve their policy.
The most recent example of protest against this came from the trustees of the Ulster Museum. I hope that Members who come from that Province and who will be voting in the Division tonight will pay heed to what they said. The trustees explained how their museum was being developed and added that
Admission charges threaten the progress gained so far and drastically reduce the value to the public of the museum.
I am sure it will not be lost on Members from the Province of Ulster that no charges will be imposed south of the border.
The other question which has exercised us throughout the debate has been that of the free day. I agree entirely with the comments made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer), who have been consistent advocates of this proposition from the start. It is ridiculous that one should have to double up on other days in order to get the sort of concessions for free days that have been announced. If the money is to go to the galleries, why cannot the galleries themselves decide whether they have a free day or not? If there is merit in giving the money to the galleries instead of claiming it for the maw of the Treasury, why not leave the decision to the trustees alone? No wonder independent trustees feel fettered and bound when they are not even allowed to take a simple decision like that by a Government determined to follow their policy.
I am sure that many hon. Members opposite expected much more in the way of a free day. I counsel them to be careful before they place too much on the concession about the money going to the galleries. I understood the Secretary of State to say that it had nothing to do with the acquisition money going to the galleries, But, as all hon. Members know,

money in addition to the acquisition money goes to the galleries for maintenance of the galleries themselves. We should get an assurance from the Secretary of State for Scotland that the money already allocated for maintenance—and we shall watch for this in the supplementary estimates placed before us—is not going to be interfered with. We want a solemn assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the money collected at the turnstiles will not be docked, when it comes not only to the acquisition money but also to the money for the maintenance of the museums.
Many hon. Members will be deeply disappointed, having followed the saga in the Press probably every day for a week about what the Government were going to concede as fear of the coming Division grew in their minds, that there has been no concession to the children. Surely if there is a need to raise extra money for the galleries—and this is a paltry contribution—it is wrong to raise it from entrance fees for children. So dogmatic are the Government about this that in the Scottish Gallery of Modern Art, where there have to be admission charges because it is a fairly remote gallery, there are to be attendants on turnstiles to collect 2p from each child coming in. One wonders what sort of state the Government are in that they should be adhering in such a policy. I remind the House that Henry Moore in his biography describes how he first had his interest in sculpture kindled when as a child he went to a public gallery.
If we deny free entrance to children in this mean way because it will reduce the amount collected by £200,000, it is not a defensible policy for the Government. Whatever concessions are made—they are not much in the way of concessions, and I doubt whether many hon. Members opposite with integrity could be bought off by them—for the vast majority of the population there will still be a barrier between them and their own national heritage. The people who gave the great gifts which enrich our national galleries left their works to the galleries not for the delectation of esoteric art lovers but to the people of the country. It has been a great strength of our tradition that people have been willing to do that, but I fear that it is all being put at risk.
The last time that I can detect that a Government seriously considered imposing museum charges was in 1923. Then, Stanley Baldwin thought about it and, on reflection, dropped it. Fifty years later, the present Government have not the realism that he displayed on that occasion. On this occasion, only Parliament can stop it. There are times when it is the function of Parliament not to act, as it does most of the time, as a forum for party political debate but to speak as a whole and say to the Government "Thus far and no further—your policies are wrong, and we will not support them."
We all know that many Governments make mistakes, and in the course of carrying out most of their policy perhaps reasonably sensibly, according to one's point of view, there comes a time when they just go too far, when they do something silly, petty and wrong. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to show that this is still a free Parliament which can stop a Government by exercising the power which alone resides with us—the power to support the great body of people in this country who are outraged at this proposition and look to Parliament to protect them from it.

9.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): The various points of view have been made very forcibly in short and pungent speeches. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science dealt with the main points governing the Government's plan to introduce a system of modest charges, and that plan must be viewed in the light of the great increase in the Government's contribution to the arts in general.
Four years ago, in 1969–70, this total was running at about £22 million. In the year 1973–74 it is estimated at about £49 million. Within that last figure about £23 million is allocated to the national museums and galleries.
My right hon. Friend has asked me to point out that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) she said that the cost of wages of the staff of the national museums was borne by the Department of the Environment, and that, in fact, she meant the Department of Education and Science.
The proposals for charging are part of a programme for the museums and galleries which includes new buildings and improvements. It also embraces a wide review of the needs of those museums and galleries which are not national institutions.
It has always been customary to make charges for special exhibitions, and these charges do not appear to have discouraged attendance. The Tutankhamun exhibition is a pre-eminent example. In that case 50p did not prevent long queues forming.
We have been one of the few countries which have not had charges in the past. For example, France, Italy and Austria charge in all their museums and galleries, and, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) conceded, other countries charge in many of their museums and galleries.
In Britain there has been a system of charging for that part of our national heritage which consists of historic buildings and the treasures that they contain. Examples are Hampton Court Palace, Edinburgh Castle and the Tower of London.
Compared with 1969–70 the Government have been increasing steadily their contribution to the arts. Our aim is to assist the arts in general—music, drama, ballet and the opera, as well as the visual arts. There seems to be no reason why there should be completely free access to the visual arts. Tickets for subsidised music or drama are not issued free. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) lists in the reference books as one of his two recreations the theatre. The Government subsidise national theatres—in the current year to the extent of £3·5 million. But the hon. Gentleman does not expect to have free tickets to the theatre.
During this debate and in recent weeks and months several hon. Members have raised the matter of the Vaughan will. I can say categorically that the Government do not intend to alter any will or bequest in bringing in these charges. In the summer, in the interests of helping the trustees of the galleries, I proposed that the out-of-date terms of a will and a bequest might be changed. But when it became apparent that there were strong feelings that this was undesirable on general


grounds, I replaced the relevant Scottish order by another which did not apply to any will or bequest.
The interpretation of the Vaughan will has been questioned. Apparently, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) did not realise that the main purpose of that will was to protect the drawings from the light because they would otherwise fade. Therefore, the will was designed to arrange that they should be kept in darkness for most of the time. [Interruption.] It is clear that hon. Members do not realise what the purpose of the will was. In Edinburgh it was stipulated that the period of display was one month in the winter, the month of January. The drawings were left
subject to the same conditions as those imposed upon the gift"—
of Turner drawings—
to the National Gallery of Ireland in Dublin.
The Dublin conditions were that the drawings were
to be exhibited to the public and to be copied subject to the same rules and regulations as the drawings by Turner RA are subjected at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, and in addition that the drawings be exhibited to the public all at one time free of charge during the month of January in every year … and no longer time—every year, and at all other times to be kept in the cabinet provided for the same.
The Fitzwilliam position is that when John Ruskin in 1861 gave his Turner drawings to the Fitzwilliam he expressed the hope that
It may be found possible to keep the drawings in the cabinet, and only to show them to persons really interested in art: otherwise retaining them solely for the use of students of the University who may wish to copy them. Continual exposure to light, in the way of exhibition, would infallibly destroy them in a few years.

Dr. Stuttaford: Will people who are interested, as students, in the pictures be able to go that the museum free of charge to study them at times other than when they are on display?

Mr. Campbell: That is exactly what I shall say; I am just coming to that.
The Fitzwilliam has followed Ruskin's wishes for the conservation of the drawings, which are not normally put on display to the public at any time of the year. That is the important difference

from Edinburgh. But it has always been prepared to show any of the drawings to any interested applicant on any day of the year that the Museum is open to the public. The drawings are then individually removed from the boxes which have replaced the cabinet.
I understand that the Fitzwilliam regulations empower the Museum Syndicate to prescribe the fees to be paid by those wishing to copy works of art, but that in practice no charge is made to anybody who applies to copy a work of art, unless it be for commercial purposes. I have asked the trustees to make similar arrangements for the Turners at the National Gallery in Edinburgh. I understand that they will be meeting soon to consider that request.
Those Turners are subject to the additional condition, which applies in Edinburgh but not at the Fitzwilliam, that they be exhibited to the public all at one time free of charge during one winter month only, January, in each year. That condition will, of course, be met by free admission to the National Gallery building in question in Edinburgh during that month. During the other months of the year these Turner drawings are normally kept in special boxes in the print room, the original cabinet, like that of the Fitzwilliam, having deteriorated with age. But students and other interested parties may, on application, see or copy them.
I am advised that the reference in the Vaughan will to the Fitzwilliam regulations relates only to copying, and not to both copying and exhibiting, and that the conditions in the will would not preclude a charge for admission to the Turners during the rest of the year. However, if the trustees accede to my suggestion, that would also meet the views of anyone who inclines to the other interpretation.
During the months other than January, when the Turner drawings are not on public display, interested members of the public who wish to see or copy any of them will be able to do so without having first to pay for admission to the National Gallery. I am told that the system at the Fitzwilliam is simple to operate, and in similar circumstances this can be done in Edinburgh. It must be done under supervision. Normally there are one or two students or others


a week at the Fitzwilliam who ask to see the Turners.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) for his expression of appreciation for the arrangements we have made.

Mr. Grimond: rose—

Mr. Campbell: I must move on, because I have to answer some of the other questions raised asked in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) raised the question of students and compared the position with that at galleries in Italy. The Government have made arrangements whereby full-time students and scholars will be admitted free by prior arrangement with their sponsoring institutions. We are also considering whether a system of cards can be effectively used.
My hon. Friend also asked about the young and the old. They will be admitted at the reduced charge of 5p, as will be the handicapped, who were not mentioned. Pre-arranged educational parties of young people will be admitted free.
My hon. Friends the Members for Louth and Ipswich referred to the important matter of a free day. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) disagreed with that on the basis that it would cause an overcrowded day. I understand that some museums express this opinion, too.
In the European system there is a much higher rate for the ordinary charge. We have aimed at keeping the general charge low. We think that this is important, I hope that my hon. Friends will agree. Nonetheless, we have made arrangements and agreed that free time will be made available within certain museums and galleries. The Government have made special arrangements for students, the young, and the old, and also for certain free days. In the light of experience and after consultation with all interested persons, the question whether an extra charge to make up for a free day should be continued can and will be reviewed.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland suggested that benefactors

will in future be less willing to bequeath pictures and other works of art to museums and galleries. There is no logical reason why charges should deter them. The concomitant of charging is that the improvement of buildings will be hastened. Furthermore, items will receive greater security through the employment of custodians or the taking out of insurance. This was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). The important point is that the Government have made changes in the tax system which make it more attractive for people to consign works of art to galleries and museums.

Mr. John Smith: What about children?

Mr. Campbell: I have already indicated that children would pay the reduced price of 5p and that pre-arranged educational parties will be allowed free entry.
As my right hon. Friend said, we are prepared to allow each museum to keep the proceeds of the charges for agreed purposes. This is other than for acquisitions, and it will not come from the appropriations in aid.
In the last three years the Government have enabled special funds to be made available for the acquisition of important works of art. Certainly Scotland has had some very valuable acquisitions, as I think hon. Gentlemen opposite representing Scottish constituencies will agree.
The Government have greatly increased the total contribution to the arts, including galleries and museums. In other than the visual arts, those who benefit are expected to make a contribution. The tickets are not free. Certainly, where buildings and ancient monuments are concerned, I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Labour Government doubled the charges for entrance to the Tower of London in March 1970.
I ask the House to reject the motion, which overstates the apprehensions which have been expressed.

Question put,
That this House considers the proposed imposition on 1st January of entrance charges to the national museums and galleries inopportune and undesirable.

The House divided: Ayes 3271, Noes 277.

Division No. 11.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mackie, John


Albu, Austen
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Ashley, Jack
Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Atkinson, Norman
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Austick, David
Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marquand, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Garrett, W. E.
Marsden, F.


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Baxter, William
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mayhew, Christopher


Beaney, Alan
Goldin, John
Meacher, Michael


Beith, Alan
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Milne, Edward


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Molloy, William


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardinganshire)


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Ronald King


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hattersley, Roy
Oakes, Gordon


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Hatton, F.
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Halloran, Michael


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian


Buchan, Norman
Hooson, Emlyn
Oram, Bert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Horam, John
Orbach, Maurice


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald Thomas


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Paget, R. T.


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pardoe, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Janner, Greville
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Perry, Ernest G.


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewsiham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Radice, Giles


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey



Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Richard, Ivor


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
Judd Frank
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kaufman, Gerald
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davidson, Arthur
Kelley, Richard
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n &amp; R'dnor)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamborn, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Davis, Terry (Bromsgove)
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Doig, Peter
Leonard, Dick
Silkin Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Sillars, James


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A.
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Spearing, Nigel


Edelman, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stallard, A. W.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steel, David


Ellis, Tom
McBride, Neil
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Evans, Fred
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ewing, Harry
McGuire, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Faulds, Andrew
Machin, George
Stott, Roger


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin







Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Swain, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Taverne, Dick
Wallace, George
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Watkins, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weitzman, David
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Wellbeloved, James
Woof, Robert


Tinn, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)



Tope, Graham
Whitehead, Phillip
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Torney, Tom
Whitlock, William
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Tuck, Raphael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jopling, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Emery, Peter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eyre, Reginald
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fell, Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Astor, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kershaw, Anthony


Atkins, Humphrey
Fidler, Michael
Kimball, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marrylebone)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh North)
Kinsey, J. R.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kirk, Peter


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Batsford, Brian
Fortescue, Tim
Knox, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Foster, Sir John
Lamont, Norman


Bell, Ronald
Fowler, Norman
Lane, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fox, Marcus
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Benyon, W.
Fry, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biffen, John
Gardner, Edward
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)


Bigg-Davison, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Loveridge, John


Body, Richard
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Luce, R. N.


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bossom, Sir Clive
Goodhew, Victor
MacArthur, Ian


Bowden, Andrew
Gorst, John
McCrindle, R. A.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gower, Raymond
McLaren, Martin


Bray, Ronald
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Brewis, John
Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Green, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Madel, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grylls, Michael
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Marten, Neil


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gurden, Harold
Mather, Carol




Maude, Angus


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Buck, Antony
Hall-David, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Burden, F. A.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger


Cary, Sir Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Money, Ernle


Channon, Paul
Havers, Sir Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hay, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Churchill, W. S.
Hayhoe, Barney
More, Jasper


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Cockeram, Eric
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Cooke, Robert
Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles


Cooper, A. E.
Higgins, Terence L.
Mudd, David


Cordle, John
Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hill John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cormack, Patrick
Holland, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Costain, A. P.
Holt, Miss Mary
Normanton, Tom


Crowder, F. P.
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Dean, Paul
Howell, David (Gulidford)
Parkinson, Cecil


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Percival, Ian


Dixon, Piers
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Drayson, Burnaby
James, David
Pounder, Rafton


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dykes, Hugh
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis







Quennell, Miss J. M.
Shersby, Michael
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Raison, Timothy
Simeons, Charles
Trew, Peter


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Sinclair, Sir George
Tugendhat, Christopher


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Redmond, Robert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Soref, Harold
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Speed, Keith
Waddington, David


Rees-Davies, D. R.
Spence, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Sproat, Iain
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stainton, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walters, Dennis


Ridsdale, Julian
Stokes, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Sutcliffe, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tapsell, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilkinson, John


Rost, Peter
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Winterton, Nicholas


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tebbit, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Sainsbury, Tim
Temple, John M.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Younger, Hn. George


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tilney, Sir John
Mr. Walter Clegg.

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,


That Government business other than business of Supply [1st Allotted Day] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Prior.]

STANDING COMMITTEES ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

10.14 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,

That—

(1) There shall be one or more standing committees, to be called Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, for the consideration of statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments referred to them.
(2) Any Member, not being a member of such a Standing Committee, may take part in the deliberations of the Committee, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.
(3) Where—

(i) a Member has given notice of a motion for an humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or of a motion that a draft of an Order in Council be not submitted to Her Majesty in Council, or that a statutory instrument be not made, or that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or
(ii) a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion that a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument be approved,

a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that the said instrument or draft instrument be referred to such a Committee, and the question thereupon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the question being put, not less than twenty Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, Mr. Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.
(4) Each Committee shall consider each instrument or draft instrument referred to it on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the instrument (or draft instrument)'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a motion, if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings; and the Committee shall thereupon report the instrument or draft instrument to the House without any further question being put.
(5) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraph 3(i) or 3(ii) of this Order, in relation to any instrument or draft instrument reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (4) of this Order, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon; and proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business:

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

I should like to commend this and the other changes on the Order Paper to the House. I shall, if necessary, speak at the end of the debate. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be easier for the House to follow what is happening if there was a little less noise.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: I wish to speak to the motion relating to statutory instruments. It would be unfortunate if the Standing Orders of the House were to be changed on a matter affecting the rights of the House in respect of its control over delegated legislation without some assurances being sought from the Leader of the House about the extent to which there might be a forfeiture of that control.
While the motion does not distinguish between the affirmative and negative resolution procedure in so far as it makes provision by way of requiring 20 Members to rise in their places to prevent a prayer or an affirmative motion being sent upstairs to a merits Committee, the effect of preventing an affirmative motion from going upstairs will almost certainly be to ensure a debate on the Floor of the House. The effect of rejecting a motion to send a negative procedure motion upstairs does not guarantee that there will be a debate on the Floor of the House, and this is a matter upon which we need an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman tonight.
It is at least conceivable in the terms of the motion before us that, if a large number of hon. Members objected to the sending of a prayer to a merits Committee upstairs, it would still be open to the Government to let that prayer drift out of time by failing to provide time on the Floor of the House to debate it. In my view that would be totally intolerable. Therefore, the first thing I wish to ask the Leader of the House is whether he will give an assurance that, if 20 or more Members rise in their places to object to a prayer being sent upstairs to a merits Committee, he will take it to be the will of the House that that prayer should not only be debated on the Floor of the House but also that it would be debated in time.
I have noted with some interest and concern that the terms of the statutory instrument motion are slightly different


from the terms of the motion that was put before the House as a Sessional Order last year in order that we might try an experiment of having merits Committees to discuss upstairs the merits of statutory instruments. The difference, if I understand it correctly, is that this statutory instrument motion would allow out-of-time prayers to be sent to a Committee upstairs for debate, and I assume that it will be impossible for such prayers to be voted upon in the House.
There are rare circumstances in which it is desirable that there should be debates upon out-of-time prayers, and there may be even rarer circumstances in which the House might desire that they should be debated in a merits Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. Those are, indeed, rare circumstances and in the overwhelming majority of cases when hon. Members table a prayer with the desire to debate it, they desire it to be debated in time and in many circumstances to reserve the right to vote upon it.
Of course this motion does not guarantee that. Therefore we require a categorical assurance that the provision allowing out-of-time prayers to be sent upstairs will not be seen by the Government or the Leader of the House as a sanction to allow prayers which are put down in time to run out of time and be shuffled upstairs for debate in circumstances in which there can be no vote on the Floor of the House.
As one who had certain reservations about the experiment carried out last session in the merits Committees, it is only fair that I should say that a number of these were an outstanding success. They have enabled Members with a specialist interest in particular prayers and instruments to debate them in Committee and have enabled Ministers to give the Committee information required by interested Members.
Having said that, I feel that in return for the sanction of sending even more statutory instruments to the merits Committee, the House has a right to expect from the Leader of the House that proper time should be made available to debate delegated legislation on the Floor of the House. I say that because it was argued in favour of the merits Committee that there was not sufficient time to deal with all the prayers and affirmative resolutions

on the Floor of the House. But if that is a fair and logical argument, as I believe it to be, it should follow that, by sending a number of affirmative resolutions and prayers to the merits Committee, there should be more time on the Floor of the House to debate delegated legislation which Members wish to discuss and vote upon immediately afterwards. One of the drawbacks of having a debate upstairs in the merits Committee is that, if there is to be a vote on a prayer or on an affirmative resolution, it cannot immediately follow the debate and cannot take place earlier than the commencement of public business on the following day.

Mr. Michael English: I do not wish to interrupt the tenor of my hon. Friend's argument, but it is only fair to say that that was asked for because we on this side of the House wanted to ensure that there would always be a possibility of a vote on the Floor of the House, and on the last occasion when we debated this matter the Leader of the House was kind enough to accept that request. I understand the difficulty which we are thereby in, but it arises partly because we wanted the ability to vote on the Floor of the House if need be.

Mr. Booth: I accept what my hon. Friend has said, but in agreeing to that request we were on the horns of a dilemma. If the choice was between having a vote on the Floor on the day after a debate and having no debate at all, we should obviously vote for a debate upon the Floor of the House as very much the lesser of the two evils, although neither is an ideal situation. I would still put it to the Leader of the House that, given the willingness of the House to accommodate Government business to the extent of having these prayers and affirmative resolutions taken upstairs and delaying the right to vote till the following day, there should at least be an assurance that no prayers will be allowed to drift out of time and that when the House signifies unwillingness for prayers or affirmative resolutions to be sent upstairs they will be debated upon the Floor of the House.
Back benchers in this House are very modest in their demands upon the Leader of the House for time to debate delegated legislation. Although there is a great mass of delegated legislation which is laid before the House by Ministers,


especially the very complicated issues of delegated legislation which have come about as a result of the European Communities Act, it is quite remarkable how rarely Members make demands for time.
In view of all these considerations, I hope the Leader of the House will give us categorical assurances that if we pass this motion time will be found on those occasions when back-bench Members rightly demand time to debate delegated legislation on the Floor of the House, recognising that these are few in number in relation to the vast amount of delegated legislation which is laid before the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Before I call the right hon. Gentleman may I very tentatively suggest to the House that it might be very much for its convenience if we took with this motion the next five motions. If the House is agreeable, that would seem to me to be—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The House is not agreeable. In that case, I suggest that we take with this motion the next two motions:
That Standing Order No. 60 (Constitution of Standing Committees) be amended, in line 7, by inserting, after the word 'committed' the words 'and statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments referred'.
That Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees) be amended, in line 10, by inserting at the end thereof the words 'or for the consideration of statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments referred to it'
These two motions are entirely consequential upon the one we are now discussing.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: One of the worrying things about our system of government has been the tremendous amount of delegated legislation which is made by civil servants and which Ministers do not scrutinise as it ought to be scrutinised. Its volume is so great that the House does not have time to scrutinise it.
Both last year and this year there have been many complaints during questions on business and at other times about the fact that many prayers were tabled which were not debated until they were out of time. The Leader of the House usually found time to debate them, but often

they were out of time. I regard this as most undesirable.
The House should have the opportunity to pray against a statutory instrument. To meet this situation the experiment involving the merits Committees was begun. We debated this matter in December last year and the Standing Committees were established in March. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) that the experiment has worked reasonably well. A total of 17 statutory instruments has been submitted to those committees and it is sensible to make the experiment permanent. Indeed, the purpose of the motion is to embody these arrangements within our Standing Orders.
The first point I wish to make relates to prayers that are out of time. I take it that the wording of paragraph (3)(i)—
or that the House takes note of a statutory instrument"—
enables a prayer out of time to be committed to the merits Committee. Perhaps the Leader of the House will confirm this when he replies. Perhaps he will also confirm that in this case it will be possible, when the debate has taken place in the Committee for a vote to be taken on the Floor of the House. It is very important that hon. Members have that right.
Secondly, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give an assurance that he will continue the procedure of securing agreement through the usual channels before putting a motion to the House to commit a statutory instrument to a Committee upstairs. If that assurance is given, I recommend my hon. Friends to support the motion. I take it that the amendments to Standing Orders Nos. 60 and 62 are consequential upon the motion.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Prior: Perhaps I may reply immediately to the three points raised by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short). I can give him the assurance he seeks in regard to paragraph 3(i). The answer is "Yes". The amendments to Standing Orders Nos. 60 and 62 are no more than consequential as a result of the motion.
The right hon. Gentleman said that 17 statutory instruments were dealt with in this way last Session. After we tabled


the motion last December, the various Committees were set up in March. Hon. Members thought that this was a useful experiment, and we wished to confirm the experiment by its inclusion in Standing Orders.
I give the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) the undertaking that we shall use this procedure only after it has been agreed through the usual channels. That is an important point which worked well last Session.
The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, who rightly takes a great interest in these matters, asked whether I am prepared to give an undertaking that all motions on which 20 hon. Members rise in their places can be debated on the Floor of the House. Although I shall consider this matter, I must say that by agreeing that a statutory instrument should be debated upstairs we increase the opportunities and chances for important debates to take place on the Floor of the House. To that extent, if a matter is important enough for 20 hon. Members to rise in their places, I should have thought it most unlikely that the House would not find time for a debate.
On the other hand, I do not want to commit myself 100 per cent. to this because all we are trying to do is to say that a statutory instrument or prayer stands no less chance of being debated on the Floor of the House under the new arrangements than it did under the old arrangements. In fact it probably stands a better chance now because of more such measures going upstairs than before. There has never been any absolute guarantee that a debate would take place in time on the Floor of the House. If statutory instruments are important, time generally has to be found for them. I do not want to change the practice in any way and I would like to see how we get on.
In so far as we send more statutory instruments upstairs to the merits Committees, this will give more time on the Floor of the House for important matters and it may from time to time mean that we can all get home at a more reasonable hour. That may not be a major consideration but it is an important one in that people outside do not understand why the House of Commons has to go on to ridiculous hours in the morning.

This is one method by which we can at least try to conduct our business on a rather more rational basis.
We will, of course, agree to send upstairs only statutory instruments which it has been agreed on both sides of the House should go upstairs. That would give us more time for considering the really controversial ones on the Floor of the House. I will do my best, as Leader of the House, to see that those controversial issues are given time on the Floor of the House, in time. I would not want to go further than that. I hope that we can pass the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 60 (Constitution of Standing Committees) be amended, in line 7, by inserting, after the word 'committed' the words 'and statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments referred'.—[Mr. Prior.]

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees) be amended, in line 10, by inserting at the end thereof the words or for the consideration of statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments referred to it'——[Mr. Prior.]

BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

10.33 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move.
That Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) be amended as follows:—
Paragraph 6, line 81, at end insert—
'(b) any vote on account for defence services for the coming financial year that shall have been put down for consideration on at least one previous allotted day'.
Paragraph 7, line 93, leave out '25th' and insert '18th'.
Paragraph 7, line 102, leave out sub-paragraph (b).'
Perhaps it would be convenient if I listened to the debate and replied at the end of it.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: This is a complicated matter, but I understand that these amendments to Standing Order No. 18 do two things. First they carry out the proposal of the Third Report of the Select Committee on Procedure to enable the Defence Vote on Account to be dealt with in the same way as the Civil Vote


on Account, and secondly they bring forward the date of the spring Supply guillotine by one week.
The first of these seems to be of advantage to hon. Members, because if the motion is carried the Defence Vote on Account debate will in future cover all defence matters and will be a much wider debate than previously. I would have thought that that would be of advantage to the House.
The second change, to bring the spring Supply guillotine forward by one week, is of advantage to the Government and Government Departments. I think I understand the reason for this. It is because Royal Assent to the Consolidated Fund Bill at present comes much too near to the end of the financial year. I think I am right in saying that the Bill finally got through this year on the last working day of the financial year. I should think that this has caused problems for Government Departments in need of money. I understand that they can draw money from the Contingencies Fund, but that is limited to £100 million or £200 million, which is not a lot of money these days.
That is the situation as I understand it, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that it is so. If, indeed, all that the motion does is to change our procedure in the way I have described—the first point giving an advantage to the House and the second an advantage to the Government—I shall recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.

10.35 p.m.

Sir Robin Turton: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for appearing to carry out the recommendation in the Third Report of the Select Committee on Procedure made in the last Session, but I should like elucidation of certain points.
The Select Committee's main point in making this recommendation was that, at the moment, defence debates are bunched together in February and March, which is unsatisfactory. We felt that it would be a good idea for the House to have a pre-legislative debate, as it were, on defence before the Defence White Paper was drawn up by the Government, so that hon. Members could give their view

on how they thought the White Paper could be framed.
We recommended that the Defence Vote on Account should be debated for one day in the autumn. The proposed amendment to Standing Order No. 18 makes it not earlier than the sixth allotted Supply Day. It so happens that today is the first allotted day of the Session, and today is 20th November. It will therefore be difficult to get our recommendation implemented this Session. How will my right hon. Friend operate Supply Days in order to enable debate on the Defence Vote on Account to take place in the autumn and not after Christmas? Unless we have a rush of Supply Days, that is surely not likely to happen this Session.
The subject of the second proposed amendment to Standing Order No. 18 was not considered by the Select Committee. Why is my right hon. Friend proposing to bring forward the March guillotine by one week? Again, the question of Supply comes into it because my right hon. Friend will have to get 10 Supply Days by 18th March.
If my right hon. Friend is to carry out the terms of the motion properly, he will have to get far more Supply Days before Christmas than we had in the past. I believe that that would be of benefit to the House but I am not quite happy about the practical effect of this motion.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am concerned with the same point as the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), namely the concertina effect of defence debates as at present. As one who has taken part in defence debates regularly for 10 years. I find it extremely unsatisfactory that we should have them all bunched up in the spring. It is even more unsatisfactory at a time when there is no likelihood, it appears, of any kind of Select Committee on defence—one understands that there are serious arguments against that proposition—because decisions are made which cannot be unscrambled on extremely expensive projects such as the multi-role combat aircraft and a number of others. If we are to be serious about the scrutiny of defence, we should see that opportunities are somewhat better spaced throughout the year.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) for outlining what appears to be the purpose of these amendments. I was surprised and a little shocked that we did not get some exposition of the purposes of the amendments from the Lord President at the beginning of this short debate.
It appears that the explanation behind the amendments has had to come from the Opposition and that they have been scrutinised and found wanting by the Father of the House and the Chairman of a very important Committee and by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It is their proper function to scrutinise the amendments, just as it is the function of the House to scrutinise statutory instruments. But, speaking as a back bencher with some pride in what the House does, I believe it is wrong that they have had to bring out these matters and wrong for my right hon. Friend to have to explain what it is the Government's duty to explain.
If the Lord President moves an amendment of this sort, surely it is his responsibility to explain it. I am sorry he has not done so. It appears that this is now the fashion of the Government.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Prior: That was rather unfair. I was prepared at the start to tell hon. Members what the amendments were about, but generally on these occasions it has suited the convenience of hon. Members for me to speak last. If the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) had taken the trouble to read the Third Report from the Select Committee on Procedure he would have seen that considerable evidence was given by me and by the Chief Whip on this matter. I am not in any way trying to deny the House a proper opportunity for debate or a proper opportunity to have these matters explained.
I confirm that the changes to the Standing Order go no further than my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) suggests, and I will try to explain why the Treasury has made its proposal to bring forward the date of the Supply spring guillotine from 25th March to 18th March. I shall come to that in a moment.
I think that it is the general wish of hon. Members in all parts of the House that we get away from the procedure that we have followed up till now of bunching all the defence debates into a small space of time. In recent years they have not been as bunched as they used to be. We used to have a two-day debate on the main Defence White Paper, then in the following week two days on Vote A, another day on Vote A the following week and then the Vote on Account debate the following week. We got it all over in about three weeks, and defence was forgotten about for the rest of the year.
We shall find one day in the autumn for the Defence Vote on Account. It will be found before we adjourn for the Christmas Recess. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton spoke about a day not earlier than the sixth alloted day. In fact, we may have six allotted days in good time for this debate to take place. Even if we do not, I am advised that we can still have the debate in the autumn, even if the six alloted day has not come and gone. I assure the House that we intend to have the Defence Vote on Account debated before Christmas this year.
Paragraph 11 of the Third Report of the Select Committee recommended that the Defence White Paper should be debated one day in the spring—this is not governed by Standing Orders—and that three days between March and July should be devoted to the Vote A debates or debates in lieu as well as the one day's debate on the Defence Vote on Account in the autumn.
Hitherto, the defence money has been voted by asking the House to pass a number of individual Votes selected by the Department. By means of the system of virement, switching money from Vote to Vote, the funds provided by the Votes which have been passed have enabled the Department to carry on to the end of July when the remainder of the Votes have been agreed to. Under the new arrangements, which follow the pattern of Civil Estimates, a percentage of each of the Votes will be passed by way of the Vote on Account. In this way the Defence Vote on Account debate will be wider in so far as the Votes relate to all defence expenditure and not to


certain aspects of it. That again is to the advantage of the House.
It is proposed to substitute "18th day of March" for "25th day of March" in the second line of paragraph 7. This will have the effect of bringing forward the date of the Supply guillotine. The reason for seeking this change is essentially a practical one and concerns the issue of funds from the Consolidated Fund. Under the present arrangements there have been occasions when there has barely been time between Royal Assent to the Consolidated Fund Bill and the end of the financial year for funds to be issued to Departments, because Royal Assent has not been given until almost the very end of March. In March of this year, for example, the Bill was not finally enacted until the 29th, which happened to be a Friday, and thus the last working day of the financial year.
Although the First Reading of such Bills takes place immediately following the Supply guillotine, time has to be allowed for the Second Reading debates and the remaining stages of the Bill. If the date of the guillotine is delayed until just before 25th March, as allowed under paragraph 7 of the Standing Order, the time factor becomes critical. It seems sensible therefore to recognise this fact in our Standing Orders, to ensure that the Supply guillotine is taken in time to enable all the necessary stages of the March Consolidated Fund Bill to be completed and Royal Assent given on or about 25th March, so that Departments can be put in funds before the end of the financial year. The proposed amendment seeks to achieve this without in any way disturbing the Supply procedure. It is almost an administrative convenience. I hope the House will accept that it is no more than that; it is certainly not intended to be.
The other measures are of interest and importance to the House. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has drawn attention to the bunching of defence debates, saying that he regards it as a scandal.
This is a small but important improvement in our procedure and I am grateful to the Procedure Committee for putting it forward. I hope that the House will agree to it.

Mr. Tom Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when, in the Government's opinion, autumn finishes? The matter is of wider consequence, as we have had no assurance that there will not be a winter Budget.

Mr. Prior: That question is not strictly in order in this debate, but in the phrase
for one day in the autumn
I have interpreted "autumn" for the purposes of the defence debate as being a period up to Christmas. However, I do not want the hon. Gentleman to read into that that I think the autumn gees on for ever.

Question put and agreed to.

PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session of Parliament be now considered.—[Mr. Prior.]

Report considered accordingly

Resolved,
That this House approves the recommendations contained in the said Report.—[Mr. Prior.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILLS

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills) be amended as follows:—
Line 1, at beginning insert 'The consideration on report and third reading of a Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bill may be taken as soon as the bill has been reported from a committee of the whole House; and'.
Line 2, leave out 'Consolidated Fund Bill or Appropriation Bill' and insert 'such bill'—[Mr. Prior.]

CHARLWOOD AND HORLEY BILL

Ordered,
That Mr. R. Bonner Pink, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Ray Mawby and Mr. Richard Mitchell be members of the Select Committee on the Charlwood and Horley Bill.—[Mr. David Walder.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to advise Mr. Speaker on the control of the accommodation and services in that part of the palace of Westminster and its precincts


occupied by or on behalf of the House of Commons, and to report thereon to this House.

Ordered,
That the Committee do consist of Sixteen Members.
And the Committee was nominated of Mr. Humphrey Atkins, Mr. Brian Batsford, Dr. Reginald Bennett, Mr. Richard Buchanan, Mr. Robert Cooke, Mr. James A. Dunn, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Ben Ford, Mr. Walter Harrison, Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith, Mr. Jasper More, Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. James Prior, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Urwin and Mr. James Wellbeloved.

Ordered,
That Five be the Quorum of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House and to report from time to time.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-committees and to refer to such Subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee.

Ordered,
That Two be the Quorum of every such Subcommittee.

Ordered,
That every Sub-committee do have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to report to the Committee from time to time.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-committees and reported by them to the Committee.

Ordered,
That any Sub-committee which may be appointed to deal with the organisation of, and the provision of services in, the Library do have the assistance of the Librarian.—[Mr. Prior.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Walder.]

MR. F. WAKERELL (LOSS OF EYESIGHT)

10.50 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I rise to raise the rather sad case of Mr. Frank Wakerell, aged 53, a constituent of mine who lives at Loughborough Park.
Early in 1954 Mr. Wakerell consulted King's College Hospital, which is quite close to my constituency, as a National Health Service patient, because he had a skin ailment. He was given different treatments and underwent various tests and finally a substance called Nivaquine, was prescribed for him from 1954 until 1956. He was discharged from the hospital in 1956 and was told that further supplies of Nivaquine would be prescribed by his general practitioner. I emphasise that his general practitioner was advised to continue with the hospital treatment. This is important because of the state of knowledge of medical pracitioners about the use of Nivaquine at that time. I emphasise that he did so on the advice of specialist hospital staff.
Mr. Wakerell's general practitioner treated him with this drug for his skin complaint until September 1962 when trouble developed with his eyesight.
In January 1963 Mr. Wakerell returned to King's College Hospital, and I can best describe accurately what then happened and what was to happen in extracts from a letter addressed by his general practitioner to the medical adviser to May & Baker, the makers of the drug.
On 14th January 1963, after Mr. Wakerell had returned to the hospital with failing eyesight, the consultant ophthalmic surgeon wrote:
This patient appears to have both corneal and retinal changes characteristic of Chloroquine intoxication. I have suggested that he discontinues Chloroquine straight away and advised that he attends the Skin Clinic as soon as possible for advice on alternative methods of treatment.
On 15th January 1963 the consultant dermatologist at King's College Hospital wrote:
The eye department asked me to see this patient in the hope that I might be able to suggest treatment for his recurrent erythema multiforme other than by Nivaquine, which is probably the cause of his disorder of vision.
In September 1963 Dr. Wells, a physician at St. Thomas' Hospital, wrote:
As you know, he has got a retinopathy, and we think that this has been caused by prolonged treatment with Chloroquine. Obviously it is extremely important that he should have no more of the anti-malarial drugs.
In 1965 a consultant physician in Wimpole Street wrote:
As you no doubt know, he has Lupus erythematosus of 14 years' duration, with


raised, roughly discoid, patches over his temples and cheeks. He told me about the previous treatment he has had, including tab. Mepacrine and later tab. Nivaquine t.d.s. for nine years: until two and a half years ago, which unfortunately has left him with opaque corneae.
I have read those extracts because it is important to get on the record what is wrong. It really means that by 1965 Mr. Wakerell was losing his sight. Until 1965 there had been no suggestion that there was any permanent loss of sight. Indeed, even in that last report there was no such suggestion.
I think that I can best illustrate the situation by Mr. Wakerell's own words. He said:
I asked the doctor concerned"—
the doctor at the hospital to which he had returned in 1963—
how long it would be before my eyes got better. He said that he did not know, but as it took a long time to come it would take a long time to go away.
That was in 1963, after he had been treated for almost 10 years with Nivaquine.
He continues:
In 1968 I paid a visit to the house governor of the hospital"—
that is King's College—
only to find out that the damage to my eyes was permanent.
Not until 1968 did he realise that.
He"—
that is the house governor—
told me that nothing legal could be done as time had expired.
Mr. Wakerell then wrote to the hospital to ask for an ex-gratia payment, but that was refused on the ground that the hospital was not morally or legally responsible. He now earns half what he earned in 1962 as a skilled fitter and, tragically, the damage to his eyesight appears to be permanent.
It is indisputable that Nivaquine, which is manufactured by May & Baker, was the cause of what, in 1969, the house governor called
the dreadful consequences of causing his eyesight to fail.
The question really is whether, to use the house governor's words, the National Health Service is
under any legal or moral responsibility.

That responsibility has so far been denied, but I hope that at some time it will be admitted.
I shall say little about Mr. Wakerell's legal rights to claim compensation for loss of his eyesight due to wrong treatment, because I should not wish to prejudice any legal claim that he may have. The point at issue is whether there is a moral responsibility to pay compensation to this man for the tragic consequences that he suffered. In my view, there is a moral obligation towards my constituent.
First, Mr. Wakerell trusted the doctors. Had he been a suspicious man he might have taken legal action many years ago. But he was a trusting man who invested a good deal of faith in the specialist hospital to which he had been sent. He trusted the hospital up to 1962, and so did his doctor who prescribed on its advice.
I do not think that it is possible to shrug off responsibility by saying that the deleterious and dangerous effects of Nivaquine could not have been known to the general practitioner, but that is the answer that I have had so far from the Minister. In writing to me on 18th July 1973 the hon. Gentleman said:
Whilst I agree that some Papers upon the possible side-effects of the use of Chloroquine were published prior to the treatment of Mr. Wakerell with Nivaquine, I am advised that these Papers are not those which an average General Practitioner would be expected to study.
The drug was initially prescribed for Mr. Wakerell not by an average general practitioner but by a well-known, respected and teaching hospital. This was not the responsibility of his general practitioner. This was the responsibility of a hospital which enjoys a very high reputation not just in this country but throughout the world.
There may be some responsibility with the manufacturers—indeed, I have had correspondence with them—but it surely is the case that a responsibility also rests with the teaching hospital. I do not want to blame any particular person. Doctors at King's College—many members of my family have been treated there—work under a good deal of stress, and it is a busy hospital, but I still believe that there is a collective responsibility towards my constituent.
In my view, there was adequate—not abundant—evidence that the drug with which Mr. Wakerell was being treated was likely to cause damage to his eyesight. The evidence for that is contained in papers that have been supplied to me by the manufacturers of the drug. I am sorry to quote technical details but it is important to do so. As long ago as 1954, in a study by Harvey and Cochrane, it was found that as a result of the use of this drug on a number of patients one or more
had difficulty in focusing for near vision.
That was perhaps only a cloud as big as a man's hand, but the evidence began to accumulate.
In 1958 another study showed
the appearance of corneal opacities in patients receiving prolonged chloroquine therapy … This condition is insidious in onset and the opacities are not necessarily associated with symptoms".
That was in 1958, four years before my constituent's treatment ceased.
In 1959 a further study by Hobbs, Sorsby and Freedman described retinal changes in three subjects who had received chloroquine in a daily dosage of up to 600 mg. for two and three-quarter years for the same skin disease from which my constituent suffered. The report said:
It is therefore desirable that regular ophthalmological examination should be made wherever the use of 'Nivaquine' or other synthetic antimalarials in high dosage over a long period is envisaged.
In 1959 a similar case was reported among 100 patients who had been given large doses for more than 18 months.
The evidence after that accumulated more quickly, but the burden of the case is that there was a number of studies, not known to the average general practitioner but which should have been known in a teaching hospital, which provided evidence that this drug was likely to affect Mr. Wakerell's eyesight. All the studies and all the cases that I have quoted took place while he was receiving this drug under administration and before 1962, when the administration stopped.
From 1962 until 1969, Mr. Wakerell was not informed of the diagnosis of his loss of eyesight and its permanent nature until it was too late for him to take any action. I wonder whether it would have been the same had he been a private

patient. I am concerned that as recently as August, at the same hospital, I had brought to my notice the case of a patient who was critically ill being denied the use of the main theatre because it was wanted for a private patient who was about to have his teeth extracted. That kind of priority is indefensible.
Mr. Wakerell's case is surely one for re-examination by the Minister of his decision not to award ex-gratia compensation. If he said tonight that he had chanced his mind about the case and that the request for an ex-gratia payment would be granted, I should be delighted and my constituent would be very grateful. If he cannot say "Yes", I ask the Minister not to say "No". I ask him to do no more than undertake a searching examination of what is a real human and pharmaceutical tragedy, something which has denied my constituent his livelihood and his eyesight.
If Mr. Wakerell had been a querulous man, this tragedy might have led to claims taking place within the statutory limitation period, but he trusted his doctors and learned too late that he might have had some cause for action. In the light of the medical evidence now being supplied I believe that this is a proper case, at the very least, for the Minister to have a searching re-examination to see whether some ex-gratia compensation can be made for something which can never now be replaced—the most precious gift of eyesight.

11.3 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am sure that the whole House will feel deep sympathy for Mr. Wakerell. His experience, expounded with his customary clarity and command of the details by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), has certainly been an unfortunate one. Before I come to the details of Mr. Wakerell's loss of eyesight, I must sketch in what I am advised is the general position with regard to ex-gratia payments.
In the case of hospital treatment under the National Health Service, if negligence can be proved, an action would lie against the doctor, the hospital authority by whom he is employed, or, ultimately, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. If there is evidence of negligence, including


evidence that the damage suffered flows from that negligence, but the claim has not been pursued within the time limits laid down by the Limitation Acts, an ex-gratia payment can be considered—against the background, that is, of damage by negligence but outside the time limits. It is only where a normal remedy of legal redress is, for one reason or another, not available that we are able to consider an ex-gratia payment, given negligence.
The position is rather different in the case of treatment by a general practitioner. A general practitioner who has undertaken to provide general medical services under the National Health Service, and is included in the medical list of an executive council, is not an employee of that executive council, nor of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He is a self-employed person, in law and in fact.
It follows that a patient who has a claim for negligence against his family doctor can take the necessary legal action himself direct, but it also follows that neither the executive council nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has any—to use the technical term—vicarious liability for the actions of the general practitioner in this case. If action is not taken within the period, six years, laid down by the Limitation Acts, there can thus be no question of an ex-gratia payment being given by my right hon. Friend. This is in the case of a general practitioner.
Turning now to the particular circumstances of Mr. Wakerell's loss of sight, the facts are very much, as far as I can see, as recounted by the hon. Gentleman, but I want to study carefully what the hon. Gentleman has now put on record in his presentation of the case.
Mr. Wakerell attended the dermatology clinic of King's College Hospital outpatients department in 1953, 1954 and 1955, each time for a period of about six weeks. He attended again in May 1956 and was for the first time, I understand, prescribed the drug Chloroquine, a proprietary name for one salt of which is Nivaquine—to adopt the pronunciation of the hon. Gentleman, which I take to be correct. The use of this drug was continued until August 1956, when Mr.

Wakerell's skin was clear and he was discharged from hospital.
In 1962 Mr. Wakerell attended the ophthalmic clinic at King's College Hospital for an eye complaint. In 1968, after a short illness, Mr. Wakerell's eyesight deteriorated and he was informed that the damage to his eyes was permanent. Mr. Wakerell then wrote to King's College Hospital about his eye condition. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the contents of this correspondence, and I want to ponder carefully on that.
In a letter dated 9th September 1969 from King's College Hospital, Mr. Wakerell was advised that the proper course would be for him to take legal advice from solicitors independent of the hospital. Mr. Wakerell subsequently took legal advice but as a considerable time, some 13 years, had passed since he had been treated at the hospital for his skin complaint, the limitation period for a legal claim based upon personal injury had elapsed. Mr. Wakerell then raised the question of an ex-gratia payment from King's College Hospital. He was informed that the whole matter had been thoroughly examined and, although the hospital board were extremely sympathetic, there was nothing more that could be done, precisely because no negligence could be seen to have existed in this case.
In June 1972 the hon. Gentleman himself wrote to me about the possibility of an ex-gratia payment being made by the Department. After careful consideration I took the view, for reasons I shall explain shortly, that the request for such a payment must be refused.
When the matter was again raised by the hon. Gentleman in December 1972, he stated that, when Mr. Wakerell had been discharged by the hospital, the hospital had advised the general practitioner to continue to prescribe Nivaquine and that this treatment continued until 1962, when his eyesight began to deteriorate. In these circumstances my Department was asked to reconsider the matter. Two further points were also raised: first, whether tests were carried out upon the drug before it was released on to the market for conditions such as Mr. Wakerell's and, second, when it was first realised that the drug could possibly have serious consequences of causing loss of sight.
Nivaquine was first marketed in 1955. At that time the Committee on Safety of Drugs, the predecessor of the present Committee on Safety of Medicines, had not been set up. It was set up the year after, in 1956. Therefore, there were no arrangements for independent checks to be made on the safety of the drug before it was put on the market. As the responsibility for the safety of Nivaquine rested upon the manufacturer, the hon. Gentleman was invited to approach Messrs. May & Baker Limited of Dagenham for the information on what tests had been made and he has furnished us with some background information about that approach and exchange.
As to the question of the possible side-effects of Chloroquine, the position is more complex. I am advised that the articles quoted in the standard reference book—Martindale—vary in date from 1958 to 1969 but that the overwhelming majority of these are journals which a general practitioner would not normally read. In the view of the Department's medical advisers, it was not until about the mid-1960s that a general practitioner could reasonably be expected to know about the possible toxic effects of Chloroquine on the eye.
In these circumstances I do not believe that there can be any question of negligence on the part of either the hospital doctor who originally treated Mr. Wakerell between 1953 and 1956 or upon his general practitioner who treated him from that date until 1962. In any event, as I said earlier, I regret that my right hon. Friend could not accept responsibility for the actions of an independent contractor, such as Mr. Wakerell's general practitioner.
I should say in passing that we now have the Committee on Safety of Medicines to collect and assess information about adverse reactions to all medicines. This committee, which has a membership of eminent doctors and pharmacists, keeps a constant watch and reports on the side-effects of drugs. The House will appreciate that all effective medicines may cause some side-effects. It is for the Committee on Safety of Medicines to assess whether the benefits which may be achieved with a particular medicine outweigh the possible hazards, whether known or merely suspected. It is, of course, for a doctor to decide as

to the drugs with which his patient should be treated, having regard to all the factors of the particular case and relying upon his professional judgment.
In conclusion, we are here faced with the case of a man who lost his eyesight, possibly but not proven as the result of medical treatment he received during the period 1956–62. And I must here point out that although Mr. Wakerell's blindness may be related to the taking of Chloroquine it is quite possible that some other factor may have been the cause. Mr. Wakerell is time-barred from taking action for negligence against either the hospital or his general practitioner.
Prima facie this is a case where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could consider making an ex-gratia payment because of the hospital element but I am bound to conclude that the established state of medical knowledge at the time that Mr. Wakerell was being treated was not such as to mean that doctors could be expected to know of the possible side-effects of Chloroquine. I therefore regret that I cannot recomment my right hon. Friend to agree an ex-gratia payment in this case.
As the House will no doubt be aware, there are other people in circumstances similar to those of Mr. Wakerell where some disability has developed but there is no proof of medical negligence or entitlement therefore to compensation. I am advised that this general question falls within the terms of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury, under the chairmanship of Lord Pearson which is currently sitting. Alas, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear that the recommendations of this commission will not be retrospective. This means, I am afraid, that its findings can have no possible effect on Mr. Wakerell's case.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Norwood said. He has put on record facts which I shall want to ponder in the light of the background information we have on the case. I shall weigh carefully what he said to see whether there is any reason to reconsider what I have told him tonight. I guarantee, therefore, that I shall look long and sympathetically at the case he has expounded. However, I must say that I see no grounds, as far as I can judge at


present, for reaching a conclusion that it would ever have been possible to establish negligence against the hospital in the matter of the treatment it prescribed and delivered for Mr. Wakerell.
The hon. Gentleman will understand that, if we really could not judge whether negligence had arisen, to give a disbursement of an ex-gratia payment simply out of the profound sympathy which we feel would open an almost uncontrollable floodgate of claims against the Department for side-effects which are invariably associated with new medicines in cases where no negligence has arisen. We should be faced with an impossible situation. We must therefore stick by the principle of establishing negligence, even if not formally established in a legal case

because of the time bar, before considering an ex-gratia payment.
It is in that light that, although I have not had a chance to study closely and in a detached way what the hon. Gentleman has said, he has not furnished me with any more information to make me feel that negligence arose. I therefore do not want to be too optimistic but I can promise him that, especially in response to the tone of his appeal, we shall continue to look hard at the facts he has given. I shall certainly have another look at the report of this debate, but I do not want unduly to raise the hon. Member's hopes or those of Mr. Wakerell.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.